# Arrogance Inc.



## Cloud Cover (31 Aug 2005)

Well, nobody here should be surprised at this:


PUBLICATION:  Times Colonist (Victoria) 
DATE:  2005.08.31 
EDITION:  Final 
SECTION:  Comment 
PAGE:  A10 
SOURCE:  Times Colonist 
WORD COUNT:  394 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CBC's insulting cash grab

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To most Canadians, Ernest "Smokey" Smith was a true war hero. As the country's last Victoria Cross recipient, he certainly deserved the tributes paid to him after he died Aug. 3. 

To the Canadian Broadcasting Corp., Ernest "Smokey" Smith was nothing more than a chance to make a buck. 

Soon after Smith died, the Department of National Defence assigned to the CBC the broadcast rights to his military funeral. Then, the CBC demanded payments from other broadcasters for access to the service. 

The other broadcasters had no choice but to go along with the sleazy arrangement. To boycott the funeral would have been a tremendous show of disrespect to Smith and to all veterans. To make a fuss over the cash demand before the funeral would have taken attention away from the story at hand, namely Smith's remarkable, selfless contribution to the peace that we enjoy today. 

Now, the broadcasters -- Global Television (part of the corporation that owns the Times Colonist), CTV, CPAC and CITY-TV -- are asking for a refund. They should get it. 

We can understand that people planning a funeral service don't want it to turn into a media circus, so it might seem that limiting access would make sense. There are ways, however, to ensure that the media presence is not disruptive while still ensuring that the principles of fairness are followed. 

The media are supposed to provide access, in electronic or printed form, to an event for all those people who can't attend in person. We cover an event such as Smith's funeral because it is our job to provide that service -- not because it will sell more newspapers (it won't) or attract more viewers (it won't). 

More Canadians get their news from private broadcasters than from the CBC. In British Columbia, Global is the dominant station, with the CBC's television station barely registering in the ratings. That the government would choose to award exclusive rights to one broadcaster is bad enough; that it would choose the one that is arguably the least relevant is confirmation of how stupid a decision this was. 

*Fans of the CBC maintain that it operates at a higher standard than the private broadcasters,** but its efforts to profit from Smith's death show that, in this case at least, it is down there with the likes of the supermarket tabloids. 

The CBC owes the other broadcasters a refund. And to all Canadians, it owes an apology. 

Ends



*And... we all know what groups of people make up those "fans of the CBC" ...


----------



## Monsoon (31 Aug 2005)

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> *And... we all know what groups of people make up those "fans of the CBC" ...


Do tell.

This just in: CanWest newspaper says Global should get free service from CBC.  Up next: Leonard Asper - god or demi-god?


----------



## Thirstyson (31 Aug 2005)

It would be nice if the CBC's funding was restored to proper levels so that it wouldn't have to stoop to using these tactics and advertisments etc.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (31 Aug 2005)

Thirstyson said:
			
		

> It would be nice if the CBC's funding was restored to proper levels so that it wouldn't have to stoop to using these tactics and advertisments etc.



Ever heard of private enterprise?  If CBC wants our money, maybe they should show stuff we actually want to see.  Then advertisers will pay them money and they will have all the funding they want.


----------



## Cloud Cover (31 Aug 2005)

hamiltongs said:
			
		

> Do tell.
> 
> This just in: CanWest newspaper says Global should get free service from CBC.   Up next: Leonard Asper - god or demi-god?



You missed part of the the point- DND should not have assigned broadcasting rights to a single entity- and a public funeral is a public funeral- all of the networks carry Remembrance day ceremonies licenced by the state- why only one in this instance, and why, pray tell, the CBC? Global would not be asking for 'free service" from CBC if they had an opportunity to acquire a licence as well.  What did CBC pay for the licence?


----------



## larry Strong (31 Aug 2005)

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> Ever heard of private enterprise?   If CBC wants our money, maybe they should show stuff we actually want to see.   Then advertisers will pay them money and they will have all the funding they want.



What a novel concept!


----------



## Thirstyson (31 Aug 2005)

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> Ever heard of private enterprise?  If CBC wants our money, maybe they should show stuff we actually want to see.  Then advertisers will pay them money and they will have all the funding they want.



Which is a better service to its public, the BBC or the CBC? The BBC is better funded and has way more stuff people are interested in.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (31 Aug 2005)

The government shouldn't be using our tax dollars to support CBC, VIA rail, PetroCan or any other organization where private industry can provide the service. It creates an unfair playing field and slaves to the sitting party who provide the funding. If CBC can't stand alone as a private enterprise, they deserve to fade into oblivion.


----------



## Thirstyson (31 Aug 2005)

Sorry but I disagree. The CBC, like the BBC, should provide a service to the public that a private organization would find unprofitable. I don't expect the same content from private and public broadcasters.


----------



## larry Strong (31 Aug 2005)

Does the BBC operate under the same kind of "Canada content" rules as the CBC does?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (31 Aug 2005)

Thirstyson said:
			
		

> Sorry but I disagree. The CBC, like the BBC, should provide a service to the public that a private organization would find unprofitable. I don't expect the same content from private and public broadcasters.



In a utopian world, void of political largesse, possibly. Unfortunately, being on the dole, the CBC is not impartial. It bends to the will of the guy who gives them the paycheck, and while the headwaters of those funds start at our pockets, it is not us that CBC provides the service to. It is the Liberal gov't. They are to Martin what Pravda was to Nikita Khrushchev.


----------



## Infanteer (31 Aug 2005)

Thirstyson said:
			
		

> Sorry but I disagree. The CBC, like the BBC, should provide a service to the public that a private organization would find unprofitable. I don't expect the same content from private and public broadcasters.



That's what we have PBS and viewers like you for.  Personally, I'm not interested in seeing my tax dollars go towards propping up Nip/Tuck, the Passionate Eye, and all the other programming that one can find anywhere else.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (31 Aug 2005)

Put Corry St on another channel, I would never turn CBC on again. ;D


----------



## dutchie (31 Aug 2005)

The only thing tax dollars do for the CBC is allow it to broadcast sub-par, boring, irrelevant, and poorly produced programs and films that the other broadcasters won't touch, and that no one watches. It is essentially the Western equivalent of the State run TV you see from North Korea, the old Soviet Union, and the banana republics of Central America and Africa. The best think about our new GG? I don't have to listen to her pontificate about the latest 'eye-opening' account from some dirt hole down and to the right of us. 

Turn CBC to the private sector, and euthanize this tripe. The only thing worth watching on Channel 3 is CBC Sports and Hockey Night on Canada.


----------



## 48Highlander (31 Aug 2005)

Thirstyson said:
			
		

> Sorry but I disagree. The CBC, like the BBC, should provide a service to the public that a private organization would find unprofitable. I don't expect the same content from private and public broadcasters.



Really?  What sort of service might that be?  Anything that's worth doing can be made to generate a profit.  I assume what you mean is that thanks to public funding the CBC can broadcast crap that very few people have any interest in.  That's only a "service" to a small portion of Canadians, and our tax dollars shouldn't be funding pet projects that only benefit a small segment of the population - ESPECIALLY when the same material could instead be offered as part of a paid subscription service.


----------



## S McKee (31 Aug 2005)

I resent the fact that my tax dollars go to support a politically bias state run entity like the CBC. I love their feature "news reports" complete with ominous sounding music playing in the background; particularly when reporting on the US war in Iraq. The inflection and tone of the reporters voice while "objectively" covering a news event invariably puts a left of centre spin on the story.


----------



## squealiox (31 Aug 2005)

48Highlander said:
			
		

> Really?   What sort of service might that be?   Anything that's worth doing can be made to generate a profit.



does that mean having an army is not "worth doing" then?


----------



## 1feral1 (31 Aug 2005)

Thirstyson said:
			
		

> Which is a better service to its public, the BBC or the CBC? The BBC is better funded and has way more stuff people are interested in.



The BBC is crap, and have become nothing but a voice of the far left. A great change of what they used to be. They have been spanked many times for their sympathetic view on radical islam (pre 11-7 attacks) and critical aspects towards their own troops in Iraq, which I find totally disgusting. Imagine if they had this attitude back in 1940!

Remember in the UK you have to have a TV licence, if not you will be fined and have your set confiscated. They actually have TV police wandering thru neighbourhoods with special vehicles which detect TVs. How bloody insane, but considering its a country in which fisherman and rods have to be registered, and be a member of a club and only so many fisherman can be in one place at a time. Total retardation!

My 2 cents on the BBC.


----------



## Glorified Ape (31 Aug 2005)

squeeliox said:
			
		

> does that mean having an army is not "worth doing" then?



Great point. There are certain areas where profit should not be the underlying motive of the actors.


----------



## Infanteer (31 Aug 2005)

You're right, and a commercial TV station isn't one of them.

Like I said, we have PBS for all the public's needs (and PBS has much better programming to boot).


----------



## Brad Sallows (31 Aug 2005)

>Which is a better service to its public, the BBC or the CBC? The BBC is better funded and has way more stuff people are interested in.

Who cares?  You aren't paying for my magazine subscriptions or my theatre tickets.  Why should I pay for your sources of information and entertainment?


----------



## Glorified Ape (1 Sep 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> You're right, and a commercial TV station isn't one of them.
> 
> Like I said, we have PBS for all the public's needs (and PBS has much better programming to boot).



Isn't PBS American?


----------



## Ranman (1 Sep 2005)

Glorified Ape said:
			
		

> Isn't PBS American?



What isn't? What would we do without cable? As long as the CRTC with its 40% content law breeds Artists like Reta McNeil the CBC will suck.


----------



## Infanteer (1 Sep 2005)

Glorified Ape said:
			
		

> Isn't PBS American?



Well, the local one I got is close to the border, so there is some Canadian input.  But the last guy was right; what isn't American.  Most of CBC's programming is shows they snag from the American networks.  If all we are justifying CBC for is the 10 o'clock news, then I don't see sufficent enough reason for the goverment TV station - we don't need a Pravda and CTV has a 24 hour news channel anyways....


----------



## Thirstyson (1 Sep 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Well, the local one I got is close to the border, so there is some Canadian input.  But the last guy was right; what isn't American.  Most of CBC's programming is shows they snag from the American networks.  If all we are justifying CBC for is the 10 o'clock news, then I don't see sufficent enough reason for the goverment TV station - we don't need a Pravda and CTV has a 24 hour news channel anyways....



The only American show on CBC is the daily 5pm dose of the Simpsons. Nice try though.


----------



## -rb (1 Sep 2005)

Thirstyson said:
			
		

> The only American show on CBC is the daily 5pm dose of the Simpsons. Nice try though.


Not exactly, there are many shows from American and British origin that appear on the CBC, Antiques Roadshow, Coronation Street, other kids cartoon shows (American) etc etc....not that I watch any of it anyways. 

nice try though 
cheers.


----------



## Infanteer (1 Sep 2005)

Actually, you're right - I just looked up CBC's programming, and it seems I mixed it up with CTV (which airs all the popular shows).

So, your tax dollars go to BBC world news, 5 hours of cartoons, Antique roadshow, 5 days of Coronation Street, a few other programs (Red Green, Rick Mercer, 22 minutes), weekend movies (this week is Return of the Jedi), CBC Sports, and the News.   All of this and more is available on other channels (OLN, YTV, CTV Newsworld, etc, etc) to those who wish to pay for the services.


----------



## -rb (1 Sep 2005)

Thirstyson said:
			
		

> The only American show on CBC is the daily 5pm dose of the Simpsons. Nice try though.


OK, after checking the programming guide and the background on a few shows I though were American...you guys are correct.






Is this innappropriate directed at myself?  :-X


----------



## Fishbone Jones (1 Sep 2005)

Yeah, but the Simpsons has lot's of Canadian content; ;D

http://ccr.ptbcanadian.com/simpsons/indirect.htm


----------



## jmacleod (1 Sep 2005)

I grew up in Halifax during World War II. The CBC was then, and until about 10-15 years ago, one
of the great public broadcasters - but then it changed. It's mandate is indeed to support the
Liberal Party, particularly the so-called "left-wing" of the Party. So the CBC got a Board of Directors
carefully culled to reflect on the new Canada; multi-cultural, dominated by left wing socialists,focused
on changing the traditional values which built this country, largely through Scots/Irish British and
French Canadians, plus the influx from central Europe and Jews who melded into the the Canadian
mosiac - along with aboriginals and later Inuit. But the CBC focused on the elite of the University
sector, who were and are anti American, anti Military and pro expansion of certain  human rights
which are in fact not "rights" but choices. Thus the "news" is what I call motivated - it is anti-Israeli
and pro causes which do not support the traditional North American values. I could say more, but
got pissed off about a decade ago with CBC Radio 1, never listen to it, Radio 2 is classical music,one
does not get the continual socialist rant. Never watch CBC English TV here, but I must say the
French Quebec based network is pretty good. CBC must be sold off - I understand the late Dr.Isadore
Asper Can West Global actually considered buying it. If Izzy Asper owned it, Canada would have been
much better served MacLeod


----------



## Glorified Ape (2 Sep 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Well, the local one I got is close to the border, so there is some Canadian input.   But the last guy was right; what isn't American.   Most of CBC's programming is shows they snag from the American networks.   If all we are justifying CBC for is the 10 o'clock news, then I don't see sufficent enough reason for the goverment TV station - we don't need a Pravda and CTV has a 24 hour news channel anyways....



I dunno, I see quite a bit of Canadian stuff on CBC (go figure) - stuff that probably wouldn't have made it onto CTV, Global, etc. Corner Gas sucks, but Da Vinci's Inquest is alright, along with Cold Case Files (or whatever the hell that show is called) and, of course, the Air Farce. 

My point with the PBS being American thing is that you can't really say "we have PBS anyway" because it's not ours, nor do we have any appreciable measure of control over it.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (2 Sep 2005)

Glorified Ape said:
			
		

> My point with the PBS being American thing is that you can't really say "we have PBS anyway" *because it's not ours, nor do we have any appreciable measure of control over it.  *



Exactly, nor should we. When they lose independence of thought and word, they become useless.


----------



## 48Highlander (3 Sep 2005)

squeeliox said:
			
		

> does that mean having an army is not "worth doing" then?



a little late, but....

Having an army can be made to generate a profit too.  Annexing land, and pillagin villiages can be quite profitable.  Soldiers can be hired out as mercenaries.  There's lots of ways to make an army profitable, we just prefer not to do it.  Our army has a specific purpose which cannot be filled by any other organization - therefore we SHOULD ensure it's publicaly funded, and that making a profit isn't a consideration in how we use it.  The CBC on the other hand does not provide any unique services and can be easily replaced by existing organizations.


----------



## Cloud Cover (7 Nov 2005)

Gotta wonder how much extra cash is on the way to the CBC to pay for their brand spanking new contract:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/election2005/spring_spending.html


----------



## In the light of things (8 Nov 2005)

> Ever heard of private enterprise?  If CBC wants our money, maybe they should show stuff we actually want to see.  Then advertisers will pay them money and they will have all the funding they want.



Well, they cut most of the Anne of Green Gables crap, now they need to cut the rest.  IMO CBC should be more like the discovery channel/history channel/comedy network while maintaining mostly Canadian programming (including hockey night in Canada  ;D.  And stop with all the stupid made-for-TV movies that nobody watches/cares about.  At least Red Green is still on.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (8 Nov 2005)

In the light of things said:
			
		

> At least Red Green is still on.



Afetr fifteen seasons Red Green has run out of duct tape. It's all done. Hung it up last week IIRC. Might be able to catch it in reruns though.


----------



## Cloud Cover (8 Nov 2005)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Afetr fifteen seasons Red Green has run out of duct tape. It's all done. Hung it up last week IIRC. Might be able to catch it in reruns though.



I could cry.


----------



## In the light of things (8 Nov 2005)

Yeah but the new ones are still on CBC Fridays at 7:00 till the seasons up, I got a few months before I have to shoot myself.


----------



## Glorified Ape (8 Nov 2005)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Exactly, nor should we. When they lose independence of thought and word, they become useless.



Where does the CBC mean we lose independence of word or thought? It's not as though it's the ONLY TV station. There's plenty to choose from and such independence is alive and well.


----------



## RangerRay (8 Nov 2005)

Pravda Canada should be broken up and privatised ASAP.  If their left-wing navel-gazing crap really is popular, it will thrive in the free market of ideas.


----------



## kcdist (9 Nov 2005)

RR,

What you fail to realize, is that a culture of entitlement that exists among the Liberal Elite in this country. Just like Mr. Dingwall's "I'm entitled to my entitlements" comment.

In this case, there is a percentage, albeit a very small percentage, of Canadians who quite enjoy the CBC. They listen to the classical music on the radio, they love the cutting edge dramas, and they especially thrive on the biting political commentary, especially around election time. (Who will soon forget the vicious attack on Stockwell Day's religious beliefs in a 'documentary' one week prior to election. Good thing he was a Christian or some people might have really been offended!) 

This small group of Canadians, spearheaded by groups such as Friends of Canadian Broadcasting, believe they are entitled to have 100% of Canadian taxpayers fund their fetish of watching and listening to the CBC. This, despite that fact that with the exception of some shows such as Hockey Night, the rating audience across the country is generally in the low single digits.

Could you imagine in the CBC didn't exist today, a political party running on a platform to spend one billion dollars annually to start up a broadcasting service (in competition with existing private companies) that would service 3-5% of the population?

Some day we may lose this culture of entitlement which isr responsible for much of the corroption in our country. Until then, we must put up with funding the CBC.


----------



## Monsoon (9 Nov 2005)

kcdist said:
			
		

> What you fail to realize, is that a culture of entitlement that exists among the Liberal Elite in this country. Just like Mr. Dingwall's "I'm entitled to my entitlements" comment.


Question: What on earth does the CBC have to do with the Liberal Party of Canada?
Answer: They're two things you don't like that you've lumped together in your mind.

The CBC (or, rather, its predecessor the Canadian Radio Broadcasting Commission) was formed by Conservative Prime Minister R.B. Bennett.  Parties of every stripe have both supported and undermined it.  If you want to try to determine a political affiliation for the journalists of the CBC, I think you'll find NDP is a better fit. That being said, the CBC does a far better job of journalistic non-affiliation that, say, Global and is every bit as non-biased as CTV.

As for Dingwall's "I'm entitled to me entitlements" - well, he was.  When you spend money on behalf of your employer on business-related matters, you're entitled (there's that hateful word again!) to be reimbursed.  I don't know where you're employed, but I wouldn't work at a company that soaked me as much as the Conservative Party wants the government to do to its employees.


----------



## larry Strong (9 Nov 2005)

But unless it's written into his contract that he receives a payout upon "voluntarily quiting", thats one entitlement he's *not* entitled to.


----------



## kcdist (9 Nov 2005)

hamiltongs said:
			
		

> Question: What on earth does the CBC have to do with the Liberal Party of Canada?
> Answer: They're two things you don't like that you've lumped together in your mind.
> 
> As for Dingwall's "I'm entitled to me entitlements" - well, he was.   When you spend money on behalf of your employer on business-related matters, you're entitled (there's that hateful word again!) to be reimbursed.   I don't know where you're employed, but I wouldn't work at a company that soaked me as much as the Conservative Party wants the government to do to its employees.



If you read the post in context, it should be clear I was referring to the small-l liberal. Perhaps I shouldn't have capped the L.

That said, the CBC, especially at election time, takes on the roll of unabashed Liberal Party supporter. Nothing wrong with that, but they use your and my tax dollar to do so. Something like having your forced union dues used to support a cause you don't believe in. Under the Conservatives, expect the CBC to be paired back or privatized. I can think of better uses of almost one Billion Dollars anually.

As far as Dingwall, Mr Strong stole my thunder. Dingwall was referring to getting a payout for quitting his job. Clearly not an entitlement as far as the average working stiff is concerned.

Finally, if by soaking government employees, you mean make them account for and justify every penny spent (So long $200 'working' lunch tabs) I say "Soak Away".


----------



## Monsoon (9 Nov 2005)

kcdist said:
			
		

> As far as Dingwall, Mr Strong stole my thunder. Dingwall was referring to getting a payout for quitting his job. Clearly not an entitlement as far as the average working stiff is concerned.


It's not too much of a stretch of the imagination to envision the government quietly asking him to resign and him agreeing to.  It's called "constructive dismissal" and there's not a court in the land that wouldn't have ruled in his favour.



> Finally, if by soaking government employees, you mean make them account for and justify every penny spent (So long $200 'working' lunch tabs) I say "Soak Away".


He was running a large corporation (profitably, it should be noted) - that involves wining and dining clients.  Whether we like it or not, it's a fact of business.


----------



## armyvern (9 Nov 2005)

Glorified Ape said:
			
		

> Where does the CBC mean we lose independence of word or thought? It's not as though it's the ONLY TV station. There's plenty to choose from and such independence is alive and well.


I believe that if you read recceguy's original post, in conjunction with the your post that he was answering,  one will find he is not inferring that 'we' will lose our independance or word or thought. When I read his response in conjunction with:
Yours first:


> My point with the PBS being American thing is that you can't really say "we have PBS anyway" because it's not ours, nor do we have any appreciable measure of control over it.


then his:


> Exactly, nor should we. When they lose independence of thought and word, they become useless.


I get: "Nor should we have any appreciable measure of control over the CBC. When the CBC loses independance of thought and word, they become useless." (Which I believe to be the case). 

That's my take on his response.
The CBC is absolutely not independant, therefore tends not to remain unbiased, and ergo is useless. So don't bother, find better and varied, unbiased sources if you want to gain knowledge of the 'facts' vice gain knowledge of the 'spin.' I think you both are arguing the same point.


----------



## S McKee (10 Nov 2005)

> [author=hamiltongs link=topic=34106/post-292909#msg292909 date=1131570893]
> It's not too much of a stretch of the imagination to envision the government quietly asking him to resign and him agreeing to.  It's called "constructive dismissal" and there's not a court in the land that wouldn't have ruled in his favour.



According to the government he was not "constructively dismissed" he voluntarily resigned. So which is it? I agree that he was probably asked to leave because some of his "expenses" could be construed as being out in left field,( in light of Gomery, God knows the liberals don't need to deal with yet another scandal). However the government should have been up front about it instead putting on that farcical display in front of the news media.  Let's call a spade a spade - Dingwall is an old style Cape Breton politician with a rather nefarious past whose "entitlement" mentality was politically embarrassing to the liberals.



> He was running a large corporation (profitably, it should be noted) - that involves wining and dining clients.  Whether we like it or not, it's a fact of business.



Wining and dining is one thing - claiming for a package of chewing gum? Come on man!

Sorry for taking the thread off track.  CBC = Liberals/Eastern Canada good! Tories/Western Canada "scary". Seriously, the CBC's relationship with the Conservatives went off the rails with the Mulroney government. I remember when the Liberals came to power in '93, it was a CBC/ Liberal lovefest.


----------



## Monsoon (10 Nov 2005)

Jumper said:
			
		

> According to the government he was not "constructively dismissed" he voluntarily resigned. So which is it? I agree that he was probably asked to leave because some of his "expenses" could be construed as being out in left field,( in light of Gomery, God knows the liberals don't need to deal with yet another scandal). However the government should have been up front about it instead putting on that farcical display in front of the news media.


Maybe so, but that doesn't make him any less deserving of a departure package.



> Let's call a spade a spade - Dingwall is an old style Cape Breton politician with a rather nefarious past whose "entitlement" mentality was politically embarrassing to the liberals.


You know, I'm from the Maritimes originally and I never knew what it meant to be an "old-style" Maritime politician until I read about it in the National Post.  I guess their Halifax bureau must have filed that story, since they surely wouldn't make just go and make up something like that to fit their view of the world... right?



> Wining and dining is one thing - claiming for a package of chewing gum? Come on man!


But Dingwall didn't claim a package of gum - that was a lie concocted by the Conservative Party.  The testimony he gave (and the evidence he gave supporting it) show conclusively that he had submitted a receipt for a number of items which included a pack of gum, but he didn't ask for reimbursement for the gum.  I feel silly arguing about gum, but if the Conservatives want to run an election on that then they can't be allowed to lie.



> Sorry for taking the thread off track.  CBC = Liberals/Eastern Canada good! Tories/Western Canada "scary". Seriously, the CBC's relationship with the Conservatives went off the rails with the Mulroney government. I remember when the Liberals came to power in '93, it was a CBC/ Liberal lovefest.


You're right - enough Dingwall nonsense.  Anyway, everyone hated Mulroney back in '93.  The CBC was hardly alone there.  Maybe the hardcore Conservatives never forgave the CBC, but that doesn't mean it was being biased.


----------



## xFusilier (10 Nov 2005)

We will never know if Dingwall was fired/resigned/was asked to leave/laid off/etc, those types of arrangements in terms of patronage positions are never disclosed to the public and never will be.  The only reason that Dingwall is coming out somewhat vindicated by this is poor politicking on the part of the REEEFORM party, who went for hysteria over substance and when that hysteria turned out to be grossly blown out of proportion (or a pack of lies, you decide which one you like better) the media reported it as such.  But some people on this board don't see it being that way they see it as Dumb Political move on the part of the Cons+Reporting of said Dumb Political in the Media=Media Bias on the Part of the CBC ergo we obviously must disband the CBC.

If you expect the media to remain unbiased you are living in a drug addled dream world .  All media is biased...if simply through the fact that when one person tells you a story about something that happened their unconscious bias (observational bias) shades their account of the incident.  If anyone believes the tone of CanWest Globals coverage isn't set by the Asper's, or that the National Post didn't take its editorial policies from Lord Tubby back in the day...you're on glue.  What we really complain about when we complain that the media is biased is that we are not having the seal of correctness placed on our own biases...IE we are not being told what we want to hear.  Thus our own narcissism means that we see objectivity in those news sources that agree with our political ilk and opinions and bias in those that don't. That being said and I have had disagreement with things that the CBC has come out with through the years, a broadcaster which is not beholden to the almighty profit margin provides a crucial source of balance to the information that we are provided with and balance in the information that is provided to the public form a health democracy and thus worth the public largess that it receives.

I assure you though that the CBC in terms of a broadcaster is probably far more accountable (and I've had a  CBC reporter try to screw me over) through the political process to its viewers than any privately owned broadcaster.  However if you take an unquestioning view of the inherent "rightness" of big business and the conservative party don't be particularly surprised when an organization that is not accountable to those entities is critical of it.  Largely the image of left-wing bias in the media is a strawman that continues to be brought up be the right but one that under closer examination fails to hold up.  Personally I used to get my new from Frank Magazine(Dick Little for PM!), but that's just me.


----------



## George Wallace (10 Nov 2005)

hamiltongs said:
			
		

> But Dingwall didn't claim a package of gum - that was a lie concocted by the Conservative Party.   The testimony he gave (and the evidence he gave supporting it) show conclusively that he had submitted a receipt for a number of items which included a pack of gum, but he didn't ask for reimbursement for the gum.   I feel silly arguing about gum, but if the Conservatives want to run an election on that then they can't be allowed to lie.



OK

Just stop and think of what you just posted.   You say he submitted a receipt for a list of items, which included a pack of gum, then carry on and say that he did not ask for reimbursement for the gum.   If you and I submit receipts for reimbursement that is what is expected - reimbursement.   Two things here; either ensure that if it is an item on a long receipt, to scratch out the receipt for the gum,   or don't submit it.   Obviously a staff member (clerk) was not up to speed on entitlements in processing his claim (as is so often the case), and it should have been disallowed and noted at the initial application for reimbursement.   I agree, that if it is all a fabrication, it looks bad on the faces of the Conservatives for bringing it up.   Now it is all old news.


----------



## Cloud Cover (10 Nov 2005)

He actually was "entitled" to 20 bucks a day for "incidentals" like gum, for which he was not required to provide a receipt. Thats 50 percent more money per day than the parents of severely disabled children in Ontario recieve to help with the excess costs of caring for them- and that's if their gross employment income is low enough to qualify.  Apples to oranges, I know but it serves to illustrate the total disconnect between the government, crown corporations and real people with real needs that as a tax payer, I would gladly pay for. 

This preck tried to claim the gum anyway, and it was rejected by the bean counters as already covered under his "incidental" expenses. Notwithstanding the problem that I have with $20 for completely discretionary incidentals [in addition to any other per diems such as meals or actual bona fide expenses such as cab [limo?] fare,] the fact he tried to claim the gum is the issue with me. Its called double recovery. It was rejected, so somebody was thankfully doing their job. Likely, they turned the ******* in too.
   
All of those political patronage jobs ought to be scrapped any person holding a senior management position by way of such appointments ought to be fired outright without severance - not the little people, just the senior management. The whole process should be opened up to a rigorous and scrupulous public competition and nobody with political service of any kind should ever be eligible for those positions without at least a good 5 years away from the political machine they were once attached to and even then it should be considered very carefully.
Remember that ficking Privacy Commissioner a few years back? Radwanski? Another deckhead.

The current son of a ***** actually had an exception carved out in his employment contract to permit him to do what is otherwise illegal for anybody else- to lobby for a private interest while holding a position that arose from public appointment. 

Dirty.
Rotten.
Scoundrels.


----------



## S McKee (10 Nov 2005)

> [author=hamiltongs link=topic=34106/post-293403#msg293403 date=1131646321]
> You know, I'm from the Maritimes originally and I never knew what it meant to be an "old-style" Maritime politician until I read about it in the National Post.  I guess their Halifax bureau must have filed that story, since they surely wouldn't make just go and make up something like that to fit their view of the world... right?



Ok I'll field this one.... off the rails again. I'm from the maritimes too, many years ago my folks worked for the provincial liberals. Conjure up images of Boss Hog and you have an "old style" maritime politician. Bretoners seemed to love putting crooks in power. Anyway I would love to read that article from the NP. Do you have the link?



> But Dingwall didn't claim a package of gum - that was a lie concocted by the Conservative Party.  The testimony he gave (and the evidence he gave supporting it) show conclusively that he had submitted a receipt for a number of items which included a pack of gum, but he didn't ask for reimbursement for the gum.  I feel silly arguing about gum, but if the Conservatives want to run an election on that then they can't be allowed to lie.



OK I'll take your word for it...but I still think he's a dirtbag, and the libs were underhanded about his "resignation".



> You're right - enough Dingwall nonsense.  Anyway, everyone hated Mulroney back in '93.  The CBC was hardly alone there.  Maybe the hardcore Conservatives never forgave the CBC, but that doesn't mean it was being biased.



On track....well consider when the libs came to power that Sheila Copps was made the Deputy PM/Heritage Minister and advocated a special "Let's keep the CBC on the air tax." I would say that the CBC had a vested interest in reporting the news with a slight, how shall we say, liberal flavour. I recently read that when Scott Brison made his inaccurate comments regarding Stephen Harper and the NCC visa-vi lobbyists, the CBC wasted no time airing his statements, however no mention was made after it was confirmed the Brison had lied and issued a written apology to the NCC and Harper. (Read Licia Corbella's columns 8th and 9th Nov at Canoe). Anyway, maybe it's just me but I find the tone of CBC reporting left of centre. Pay attention to the inflexion of the reporters' voices when they do a story on "conservative issues" or the evil empire to south. I even noticed at times they will add in an ominous musical track when they do feature stories on US involvement in Iraq. Pretty sad for a supposedly objective news agency. Since the lock-out I have ceased watching the National altogether and strictly watch CTV news net.


----------



## Monsoon (11 Nov 2005)

Jumper said:
			
		

> Ok I'll field this one.... off the rails again. I'm from the maritimes too, many years ago my folks worked for the provincial liberals. Conjure up images of Boss Hog and you have an "old style" maritime politician. Bretoners seemed to love putting crooks in power. Anyway I would love to read that article from the NP. Do you have the link?


No - I subscribe to the hardcopy version, so I don't read it online.  It was a polemic against Dingwall by Bruce Garvey (or Don Martin - not sure) two or three weeks ago that tarred every politician east of Montreal with the same brush.



> On track....well consider when the libs came to power that Sheila Copps was made the Deputy PM/Heritage Minister and advocated a special "Let's keep the CBC on the air tax."


Well, you're not going to get me to say that Sheila Copps isn't an idiot...



			
				whiskey601 said:
			
		

> Notwithstanding the problem that I have with $20 for completely discretionary incidentals (in addition to any other per diems such as meals or actual bona fide expenses such as cab [limo?] fare)


You've never accepted TD, then?  My understanding is that it was a receipt submitted while travelling.


----------



## armyvern (11 Nov 2005)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Just stop and think of what you just posted.   You say he submitted a receipt for a list of items, which included a pack of gum, then carry on and say that he did not ask for reimbursement for the gum.   If you and I submit receipts for reimbursement that is what is expected - reimbursement.   Two things here; either ensure that if it is an item on a long receipt, to scratch out the receipt for the gum,   or don't submit it.   Obviously a staff member (clerk) was not up to speed on entitlements in processing his claim (as is so often the case), and it should have been disallowed and noted at the initial application for reimbursement.   I agree, that if it is all a fabrication, it looks bad on the faces of the Conservatives for bringing it up.   Now it is all old news.


George
The gum etc was stricken off his receipt (just as I do for hotel room movies etc on my receipts). I have also been led to believe that when the first public statements were made about the Dingwall affair, one of the people answering the reporters queries answered as follows: "I do remember that one of the receipts had included a package of chewing gum but it was not one of the claimed items." When the story got picked up, the struck-out part of the answer was not reported. Thus, everyone was all over it, even though it has never been said by the auditor's that he had or even attempted to claim a package of gum. Just one more quote by the media taken out of context. I do agree that some people abuse the Crown - thus the Taxpayer's trust - and that when they are caught no pension should come of it. I do not believe that Mr. Dingwall deserves one either.

For those who believe that he deserves a pension regardless....then re-instate them for all Federal workers who've lost theirs, including any personnel who have been "Dishonourably Discharged" and lost their pensions. Well, I think that's BS. If one loses his pension it's usually for a darn good reason. Why does this only seem to be applicable to all federal federal workers but not the politicians? After all, for being so deserving and having 'earned it', I'd argue that the little people (not the elected ones) have more rightly 'earned theirs' and absolutley have caused less of a financial boondoggle to the taxpayer than any corrupt politician who has been exposed lately.


----------



## Acorn (13 Nov 2005)

Dingwall would likely claim the mouthfull of garlic and the stake through his heart if his bloodsucking is really stopped.


----------



## paul_h4554 (30 May 2006)

I like rick mercer?


----------



## Brad Sallows (30 May 2006)

No-one here can answer that question for you.  Only you can decide whether you like Rick Mercer.


----------



## Bobbyoreo (30 May 2006)

LOL...nice


----------

