# Media Bias [Merged]



## Cloud Cover (22 Aug 2004)

As everyone who visits this site is by now well aware, monumental changes are about to beset the Canadian Forces. So far, only the print media has carried this story, with perhaps the exception of Canwest media [not sure about them - too Toronto centric for me to watch!!!] 
The CBC in particular seems noticably quiet on the so called peacekeeping brigade and deletion critical weapons platform in the Navy, Airforce and the Army. 

Here are a few questions for discussion:

Would you agree that during the election the CBC mischaracterized the Conservative military program, making it an issue before the Liberals capitalized and further misrepresented the issue?   

Does the broadcast media, [particularly the CBC],   harbour an anti-military bias, or simply favour the generally accepted university academic point of view that Canadian military efforts should be soft-power peace keeping, therefore warfigthing skills and equipment are unnecessary? [Somalia affair commentators may wish to weigh in heavily here ... remember the article "CBC points the gun, Minister pulls the trigger"?]

Does the media really understand what is required to defend Canadian interests, the real force and equipment requirements for peacekeeping, and has media influence over politicians impacted detrimentally the future safety of Canadian soldiers. Alternatively, does the media deliberately disregard or dismiss critical facts when reporting on the CF, and is this dangerous for the nation and its service members? 

Has the media dangerously shifted the focus of Canadian political-military discourse and decision making to optics over substance? If so, why and what is the objective?

Has the media put the nation and its citizens at risk through poor/inaccurate reporting or bias/agenda setting? Should/can they be held to account or held jointly liable for their actions if service members are killed or injured? l
... 

The CBC focus seems a little biased on my part, but I call's 'em as I see 'em. Incidentally, isn't the head of the CBC a politcal appointment at the discretion of a minister, just like the CDS? Following party lines perhaps? 

"A" System .. shoot!!!     

Cheers!!!


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (22 Aug 2004)

Yes.  You might appreciate this site: http://cbcwatch.ca/


----------



## Cloud Cover (22 Aug 2004)

Nice tightly worded post. Concise and to the point. I have seen the CBC Watch site before ..thx for putting it in this thread.

Cheers ...


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (23 Aug 2004)

;D"The most valuable of all talents is that of never using two words when one will do."   ~Thomas Jefferson


Regards ...


----------



## Slim (23 Aug 2004)

I can't remember what year it was when I actually trusted anything other than a traffic report by the media.

I have spoken (written) at length on this subject, but since its been brought up again I'll say a few things.

Firstly the media exist solely to sell things. be it newspapers, TV spots or whatever media happens to be the in thing for the day. They couldn't care less what they're writing, so long as people are buying their words...

Don't believe me. Go and sit down in front of the TV, or pick up a newspaper and start to read. After a bit you will begin to notice the not-so-subtle things they say in order to inflame us...rather than impartially informing. Which is what they claim to do. You'll notice too that they slip in little things at the end of a story to stir things up, guaranteeing you'll be back the next day to read the conclusion of what ever the story is.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Render&inifile=futuretense.ini&c=Page&cid=968332188492&pubid=968163964505
http://www.canoe.com/NewsStand/TorontoSun/home.html

I have included links to the big three papers in Toronto. Read a story that all three carry and start looking for differences. Depending on the papers you're reading they could be quite small...Or huge. Also look at they way they say things


----------



## Trinity (7 Aug 2006)

I'm not a huge conservative fan.. but even I think they got screwed here...


7 minute video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDw5a0_iFBk&eurl=


----------



## George Wallace (7 Aug 2006)

"Very predictable!"


----------



## FredDaHead (7 Aug 2006)

And people wonder why I don't take TV news seriously.


----------



## paracowboy (7 Aug 2006)

wow. Who'da thunk it? Pravda telling lies. What a shock.


----------



## Koenigsegg (7 Aug 2006)

"Pravda telling lies."    -  I like that one!

Never have liked TV news...sometimes it is so obvious that they are editting things to suit their agenda too.   Just like Michael Moore, what a knob.


----------



## MdB (7 Aug 2006)

Ah, my bubble is already so deflated, what I'm gonna do now!? :-X


----------



## The_Falcon (8 Aug 2006)

Not surprising, looking at who made the piece.  Next time anyone comes on here and says there is no bias in the news media (particularly at the communist broadcasting corporation), I think this well go a long way in showing that there is bias, and quite strong bias.  In a perfect world, the tories will win a majority and then promptly sell off the CBC to FOX NEWS ;D


----------



## Thompson_JM (8 Aug 2006)

Since Fox news is obviously swarming with journalistic integrity.....  :blotto:

Its hard to get mad at one media outlet when theyre all to blame!  though I'll agree that this is no suprise....


----------



## GAP (8 Aug 2006)

Received this afternoon

Dear 

I write to acknowledge receipt of your e-mail, which I have shared with
Jonathan Whitten, Executive Producer of The National, along with the
request that your concerns be addressed.

Yours truly,

Vince Carlin
CBC Ombudsman

What I said when I sent link clip to Ombudsman

>>> "Gord" <.net> 8/8/06 11:32:46 AM >>>
Take a look at this clip and you tell me if this accurate reporting.


----------



## captjtq (8 Aug 2006)

Wow... I'm shocked, but I suppose not particularly surprised.


----------



## GAP (8 Aug 2006)

I do not think anything earthshattering is going to happen, but at least they know people know about the farce


----------



## career_radio-checker (8 Aug 2006)

GAP said:
			
		

> I do not think anything earthshattering is going to happen...



You'll know it when Christina Lawand gets shuffled to Radio-Canada.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (9 Aug 2006)

God please the bloggers and such.


----------



## Rice0031 (10 Aug 2006)

The part that really bugs me the most about journalists taking people's words out of context is that many people, (dare I say the majority?),  take it as 100% fact because the journalist works for some large news network.

Not everything you read or see on TV reflects a situation or someone's comments or opinions very well. And I don't like that. I like to see non-biased information.

But we don't live in a perfect world


----------



## GAP (11 Aug 2006)

this is what I sent, and they initially sent back



			
				GAP said:
			
		

> *Received this afternoon*
> 
> Dear
> 
> ...



I received this today as their explanation....pathetic


Thank you for your email to CBC regarding a report aired on The
National. Jonathan Whitten, executive producer of The National asked me
to forward the following to you:


Thank you for your e-mail of August 8th addressed to Vince Carlin, CBC
Ombudsman. As you know, Mr. Carlin asked me to reply.

You wrote to draw our attention to a report on the August 4 editions of
THE NATIONAL that you feel is inaccurate and misleading.  Specifically,
you wrote that by juxtaposing a comment by a protestor with what you
feel is an unrelated statement made by Prime Minister Stephen Harper in
a news conference, the report misrepresented the Prime Minister's views,
and made him appear insensitive.

The report on THE NATIONAL Friday night concerned the Prime Minister's
reaction to questions he was facing about the Middle East. The report
began with protestors outside the Conservative caucus meeting in
Cornwall, one of whom was seen saying that both sides killing innocent
children is wrong and has to stop.

The Prime Minister, meeting behind closed doors, did not hear her
message (although, as we reported, she was invited to meet with the
Minister of Foreign Affairs), but reporters did ask him about civilian
deaths in a news conference held after the caucus meeting. He did not
reply to the question directly, but he told reporters - including the
CBC's Christina Lawand - that his policy on the Middle East remained the
same and would not change because of public opinion surveys or protests.
He said that Canadians are not neutral on terrorism and that he would
not call for a cease-fire until the right conditions were in place. And,
he said, when properly understood, his views represent the views of most
Canadians. Ms. Lawand clearly stated those views in her report.

She also included a statement from the news conference - the one to
which you referred - where the Prime Minister said he is "not
preoccupied in any way with reaction within individual communities."

This statement was in response to a reporter who asked specifically how
he felt about what seemed to be growing support in the Jewish community
for his government and ended his question by asking whether he was
concerned about the negative response among some in the Arab
community.    Mr. Harper replied that he agreed the Middle East conflict
had a pretty strong resonance in some cultural communities, but that the
government "can't take positions based on polls, we can't take decisions
based on reactions within certain domestic communities."

In the bulk of his answer, however, he explained that the issues were
far larger than the concerns of some communities. These are "serious
international issues, he said, "there are not only many lives at stake,
there are a lot of long term strategic interests of this country and of
the world.." He talked about two major elements of the Canadian policy,
about terrorist groups, both in Canada and abroad. He talked about
humanitarian concerns, including evacuation and re-construction as being
among the "focuses of our activity."

Then he returned to where he had started his answer and repeated: "I'm
not concerned or preoccupied in any way with reaction within individual
communities. I think that reaction is very predictable."  That was the
clip included in the report following the protestor. It is logical to
conclude here that the reaction he is "not concerned" with, is the kind
of reaction personified by the protestor seen at the beginning of the
report.  Mr. Harper was talking about predictable reactions in general
of which the protestor was a specific example.  Some have argued that he
was talking about polling within the Arab and Jewish communities, and
while that's possible, he was also discussing, in addition to polling,
"reactions within certain domestic communities."  Far from being
unrelated, as you suggest, the two are directly related.

Later in the news conference, the Prime Minister was specifically asked
about the protestors outside the meeting.  While he did say that it is
important to listen to members of the various communities (as we
reported, his Ministers met with two of the protestors) he also said
"they can't guide all of our decisions at the same time."  Far from
being contradictory to his response to the earlier question, this was
restating the government position that we faithfully reported throughout
the piece.

I do, however, agree with your concern about the structure of the
report. The construction of the piece did make it appear the Prime
Minister was responding directly to the woman protester, and that was
not the case.  We should have taken the time to make it clear that the
Prime Minister was responding to a general question, and not a specific
question about the woman's concerns, and I regret that.  While this does
not constitute a misrepresentation of Mr. Harper's position, or the
position of his Government, the program could have, and should have,
taken the time to be clear about what prompted the response.

It is also my responsibility to inform you that if you are not satisfied
with this response, you may wish to submit the matter for review by the
CBC Ombudsman, Mr. Vince Carlin. The Office of the Ombudsman, an
independent and impartial body reporting directly to the President, is
responsible for evaluating program compliance with the CBC's
journalistic policies. Mr. Carlin may be reached by mail at the address
shown below, or by fax at (416) 205-2825, or by e-mail at
ombudsman@cbc.ca

Yours sincerely,

Jonathan Whitten
Executive Producer
THE NATIONAL

Box 500, Station "A",
Toronto, Ontario
M5W 1E6


I hope this information is helpful to you, and thank you again for
writing.


Sincerely,

Jamie Richards
Communications Officer
CBC Audience Relations

*My Reply*



> I ask you about the accuracy in the reporting in the report and after an explanation of the clip (which I DID understand by the way) you concede that there could be another impression? There was only one impression being touted here, and if this is what you call reporting, I would suggest you and the reporter send your resumes to one of the rags that are always telling us "Aliens kidnapped Me!!"
> 
> The slant of the clip was on purpose, and does CBC a disservice. Keep your personal politics out of the news, if that is what the case is. If is a corporate attitude, then I, as a supporting taxpayer, am telling you to stop it. You are a News Service, Not a Political Policy Advocate.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (11 Aug 2006)

Well at least they had the parts to get back to you.


----------



## George Wallace (11 Aug 2006)

GAP said:
			
		

> this is what I sent, and they initially sent back
> 
> I received this today as their explanation....pathetic
> 
> ...




Do you get the feeling you are going around in circles.

Then this admission and brush off:



> I do, however, agree with your concern about the structure of the
> report. The construction of the piece did make it appear the Prime
> Minister was responding directly to the woman protester, and that was
> not the case.  We should have taken the time to make it clear that the
> ...


----------



## Trinity (11 Aug 2006)

I wonder how many of these he writes a day.

I wonder.. actually.. which intern he has write these for him.  :


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (11 Aug 2006)

I learned long ago to be wary of the media. When I was closing out the Chapels and charities in Cyprus in 1993 Paul Workman of the CBC requested that he accompany me on my farewell tour of the Charities in Cyprus (6 in total....3 on the Greek side and 3 on the Turkish side). He took a lot of footage that day and interviewed me several times. I thought he would do a piece on the vital charity work that we as Canadians had done there. At the end of the day he asked me this question "How do you feel about the Canadians pulling out of Cyprus?" My reply " we're sad to go, we have a lot of friends here and we've done a lot of good work, but  we hope our British Allies will continue this vital charitable work."

That night on the National he did a piece in which he stated that Canadian soldiers were all opposed to the pullout in Cyprus. He included soundbites from all the interviews he'd done in which we all expressed sadness at leaving the country after a 30 year stay. My soundbite said "we're sad to go...": It wasn't about the charities or the tour...it was his personal bias that we shouldn't be leaving Cyprus. :rage:
It'll be a frosty day in hades the next time I consent to take a CBC reporter along for the ride. :clown:


----------



## GAP (14 Aug 2006)

As noted above, this was my reply to the "explanation" I received, which I CC'd to the CBC ombundman



> I ask you about the accuracy in the reporting in the report and after an explanation of the clip (which I DID understand by the way) you concede that there could be another impression? There was only one impression being touted here, and if this is what you call reporting, I would suggest you and the reporter send your resumes to one of the rags that are always telling us "Aliens kidnapped Me!!"
> 
> The slant of the clip was on purpose, and does CBC a disservice. Keep your personal politics out of the news, if that is what the case is. If is a corporate attitude, then I, as a supporting taxpayer, am telling you to stop it. You are a News Service, Not a Political Policy Advocate.



This is the reply I got today from the ombunsman

Dear xxxxxx:

I will be conducting a review of Ms. Lawand's report.  Once it has been completed, it will be available on the CBC website (cbc.ca/ombudsman/findings).

Yours truly,

Vince Carlin
CBC Ombudsman

Interesting, we'll see what happens


----------



## George Wallace (14 Aug 2006)

Interesting.  It will be available on the CBC website, eh!.  I wonder how ethically CBC may treat the report if it is condemning their actions?  Will they publish it in a next to impossible to find link to a next to impossible to identify 'Identifier' under some equally impossible to fathom Title?


----------



## Blakey (14 Aug 2006)

GAP, although I have had no experience in dealing with them, maybe the CRTC is the way to go?


----------



## GAP (14 Aug 2006)

PB&J said:
			
		

> GAP, although I have had no experience in dealing with them, maybe the CRTC is the way to go?


That may be an idea, but first whether it is the ombudsman or the CRTC, the producer must be given the opportunity to reply (which he did), then the ombudsmen, then maybe the crtc...we'll see


----------



## FredDaHead (14 Aug 2006)

Uh, is it just me or cbc.ca/ombudsman/findings doesn't actually exist?



> Sorry, we can't find the page you requested.


----------



## Blakey (14 Aug 2006)

Frederik G said:
			
		

> Uh, is it just me or cbc.ca/ombudsman/findings doesn't actually exist?


Works for me.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (14 Aug 2006)

Frederik G said:
			
		

> Uh, is it just me or cbc.ca/ombudsman/findings doesn't actually exist?



Doesn't work cause addy is misspelled http://www.cbc.ca/ombudsman/page/findings.html


----------



## FredDaHead (14 Aug 2006)

Nfld_Sapper said:
			
		

> Doesn't work cause addy is misspelled http://www.cbc.ca/ombudsman/page/findings.html



Thanks. I was starting to wonder how much integrity CBC had left (none) if their own ombudsman doesn't actually have a page to report his findings.


----------



## The Bread Guy (14 Aug 2006)

Some Googled quotes from Mr. Carlin, to give a bit of a sense...

*Truth takes a bullet in the anti-terror war*
Hamilton Spectator, 8 Dec 01
''Journalists are always good at covering someone else's conflict. They seem to have greater difficulty in covering their own country's wars. The role of journalists in a conflict is to be fair witnesses to reality -- representatives of the average person at the scene of the action.  Leaders, even in times of war, must have their decisions scrutinized by citizens. Journalists provide that bridge between the event and the citizen.  A careful study of the U.S. experience in Vietnam should lead one to the conclusion that the U.S. lost because it lost the support of its people. I would argue the support was lost because the people realized their leaders were lying about the war. ''

From* Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications*
Issue 9, Evidence, May 13, 2003 at
http://tinyurl.com/qrf7o
''For all journalists, I would endorse the notion of some national reference point for accountability — not to a government, but to a representative or representatives of the public. Owners and journalists have rights, to be sure, but neither have license. People who feel ill-used by journalism should have the ability to complain to someone who at least has the moral authority to hold them to account.''

''Former head of CBC Newsworld Vince Carlin says of the Bush administration, "They learned the wrong lessons from Vietnam and still think lying to the public is the best course." ''
*Jessica Lynch's Story is Turning 'Into a Monster' for the Bush Administration*
Toronto Star, 16 Nov 03, as reprinted here:
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1116-02.htm :bullet:


----------



## mainerjohnthomas (15 Aug 2006)

The print media is no better.  I back checked a story in the National Post a few months ago claiming Iran had passed a law requiring those of other religions to wear identifying marks or colours.  Some have proposed this before, but been shut down quietly and firmly in the past.  It turns out the National Post was talking out its ass, no such bill had been read, let alone passed by the Iranian legislators.  By the time I researched that, the story was in half the national and international papers.  All quoting the National Post article, and none back checking the source.  The National Post printed a very discrete retraction.  This isn't a shot against any one paper, because none of them checked the facts before writing.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (15 Aug 2006)

I believe that incident was posted here as well and eventually the truth came out.


----------



## Japexican (29 Aug 2006)

The response is up on the website... the thread is a bit old, but its interesting to see how it resolved itself.  Never pass a fault and all that.  The report is a few pages long, so I figured I'd just post the highlight.  I'm sure somebody could probably write a nice article about the CBC admitting to a complete lack of journalistic standards using a few "strategic" quotes >, but that would be stooping to their level and its time for bed anyways.

"In this case, the most dramatic element of the item was just unfair and, as I said above,
violated the direct prohibition on using an answer from one question as if it were an
answer to another. The producer argues that Mr. Harper’s views were fairly stated, but
the context and structure were such as to mislead the viewer."

http://www.cbc.ca/ombudsman/page/Lawand.pdf


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (29 Aug 2006)

Hopefully, in the journo world, that means something.......


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (29 Aug 2006)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Hopefully, in the journo world, that means something.......



yeah right.....she probably didn't even give it a second thought.


----------



## a78jumper (20 Sep 2006)

PC Dumping Program.....

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

Our curious public broadcasting system had an even stranger chair. Another Fiberal appointee bites the dust...though it makes you wonder why someone a little younger did not get the job. Ooops silly me, this was his reward, five years at the trough.

http://news.channels.aolsvc.aol.ca/l...19183609990002


CBC Chair Quits After Controversial Remarks
OTTAWA (CP) - CBC chairman Guy Fournier has resigned after controversial comments he made about bestiality and bowel movements.


Heritage Minister Bev Oda made the announcement today during question period in the House of Commons.

Fournier, 75, became the target of anger and criticism in recent days after falsely claiming in a French-language magazine article that Lebanon permits bestiality, and for granting a lengthy interview on the joys of bowel movements.

Fournier, a well-known playwright and producer, apologized Sunday on French-language television but it was too late.

Oda told the Commons that Fournier, who was appointed by the previous Liberal regime to a five-year term last September, "has increasingly lost the confidence of Canada's new government."

The minister said she received Fournier's "voluntary resignation" effective immediately.

09-19-06 18:10 EDT


----------



## COBRA-6 (20 Sep 2006)

to be replaced by Lowell Green effective immediately


----------



## a78jumper (20 Sep 2006)

That I wanna see!!!!


----------



## a_majoor (13 Dec 2007)

This story can stand without comment by me:

http://www.stephentaylor.ca/archives/000919.html



> *CPC wants answers over alleged CBC-LPOC collusion*
> 
> Official Conservative Party press release just received:
> 
> ...


----------



## tabernac (13 Dec 2007)

Gotta love "un-biased" MSM, especially when it's funded by the public, and is in-bed with the Official Opposition. It'll be interesting to see the Grit's response.


----------



## RangerRay (13 Dec 2007)

There will be no response.  The MSM will not report it, therefore it will never have happened.  Only us junkies who get our news from the blogosphere will know.

 :-X


----------



## COBRA-6 (13 Dec 2007)

RangerRay said:
			
		

> There will be no response.  The MSM will not report it, therefore it will never have happened.  Only us junkies who get our news from the blogosphere will know.
> 
> :-X



are you kidding? I bet the other, _non-government funded _ MSM will be all over this!

watch and shoot!


----------



## GAP (13 Dec 2007)

Mike Duffy is covering it with Rodriguez, Co-martin, and ??. Not being subtle at all.

It was comical actually. I watched the hearings via the internet live this morning. Any commentary the CBC made was like pulling teeth that Mulroney was essentially kicking the committee's ass. 

Then on "As it Happens" the questions were trying to demonize Mulroney every which way.

Bias....nah....(giggle)


----------



## tabernac (13 Dec 2007)

GAP said:
			
		

> Mike Duffy is covering it with Rodriguez, Co-martin, and ??. Not being subtle at all.
> ...
> Bias....nah....(giggle)



1.) I've always found Mike Duffy to be one of the best Canadian political analysts. That Don guy that CBC has is too old, and too uninteresting...

2.) I had to laugh at that.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (13 Dec 2007)

Time to cut off their funding and let them try stay in business as a private corporation. The CPC should be shouting this from the rooftops, and turn this whole Mulroney thing around on the libs. It would seem that Dion and his minions can't seem to do anything above board. The whole party is corrupt and has been for years. Honesty and fair play just isn't in their rule book.


----------



## COBRA-6 (13 Dec 2007)

Ebenezer 'the Grinch' Scrooge said:
			
		

> Time to cut off their funding and let them try stay in business as a private corporation. The CPC should be shouting this from the rooftops, and turn this whole Mulroney thing around on the libs. It would seem that Dion and his minions can't seem to do anything above board. The whole party is corrupt and has been for years. Honesty and fair play just isn't in their rule book.



I bet there are a whole bunch of CPC staff working late tonight in Ottawa


----------



## The Bread Guy (13 Dec 2007)

GAP said:
			
		

> Then on "As it Happens" the questions were trying to demonize Mulroney every which way.



That's how AIH seems to work - if you're a guest, you're either going to be painted as the hero, or the villan.  I guess they pigeonhole Brian M. into the latter.   :


----------



## RangerRay (13 Dec 2007)

Hmmm...watched the evening news on Global BC...nothin'.

Possibly something on CTV's late night national broadcast?  Would the Corpse report on this in The National?  As much as I enjoy watching Duffy, I have a feeling most people (ie. voters) do not get their information from his show.


----------



## Kirkhill (14 Dec 2007)

I found Mike's interchange with Ian MacDonald (sorry L. Ian MacDonald) as interesting.  MacDonald started off with a grin and a boys-will-be-boys smirk and a tale of foreplay and sex. How it was OK to plant a question in an MP's ear and create a source then have the story brought into the lobby where they can "torque" the story (MacDonald's word) as they see fit.  Apparently Mike wasn't buying it off camera (or else tales were being told out of school) because MacDonald suddenly wipes the smirk off and suddenly becomes concerned that CBC MUST answer questions as this obviously is not on.

Is "smarmy basta*d" in common Canadian usage?


----------



## RangerRay (14 Dec 2007)

Well, I just watched CTV's national broadcast, and there was not one word of this story there.  Even though it aired on one of their programs!

Nothing to see here...move along...


----------



## McG (14 Dec 2007)

Sounds like Tomorrow Never Dies.


----------



## Reccesoldier (14 Dec 2007)

In todays world there is no one who can not get their information from a private source (ie not government funded).  Once long ago before the internet, podcasts, satellite tv and all the rest the CBC was the only game in some places.  That is no longer the case, therefore the cause and reason for the CBC's funding is gone as it should be.


----------



## ModlrMike (14 Dec 2007)

I find it disgusting and troubling that ANY broadcaster, let alone the CBC, would seed questions in the House of Commons. If MPs aren't smart enough to compose their own questions for the government, then it's up to the public to elect someone else in the next election. Can you imagine what the opposition would be saying if the government was so obviously in bed with the media? It's one thing for a political party to use the media to get their message out, it's quite another for things to be the other way around.


----------



## Kirkhill (15 Dec 2007)

Canadian Press Story carried by CBC

"...the CBC does "not accept that this is evidence of bias against any particular political party, but rather was something that occurred in the context of trying to determine the specific circumstances of an ongoing political story." "




> *CBC reviewing claim reporter fed questions to Liberal MP*
> Published: Friday, December 14, 2007 | 7:16 PM ET
> Canadian Press: THE CANADIAN PRESS
> OTTAWA - The CBC has begun an internal investigation and possible disciplinary action after one of its parliamentary reporters apparently suggested questions to a Liberal MP taking part in the high-profile Mulroney-Schreiber inquiry.
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (19 Dec 2007)

Mot so fast there; the CBC is implicitly admitting there is truth to the story:

http://stevejanke.com/archives/249698.php



> *CBC VP says reporter colluding with Liberal Party will be disciplined*
> Tuesday, December 18, 2007 at 03:08 PM Comments: 17
> 
> Aaron Wudrick has received an email from a VP at the CBC in which it appears that a decision has been reached concerning allegations that a CBC reporter was acting in collusion with the Liberal Party to frame questions to ask of Brian Mulroney at the Commons ethics committee hearings into the Karlheinz Schreiber affair.
> ...


----------



## Kirkhill (19 Dec 2007)

Not wanting to jump too far ahead on this one but......wouldn't it be luvverly?


----------



## Rifleman62 (19 Dec 2007)

Possibly because CBC has a new President and CEO. He was interviewed on Politics with Don Newman (aka Bash the Conservatives with the bias liberal media with Don, focus the discussion on conservative bashing, Newman). Newman appeared nervous during the interview, and later programs were really terribly one sided. Note Lacrioux's comments at the end of the announcement. A new beginning??
   
*Minister Verner Announces New President of the CBC/Radio-Canada*
OTTAWA, November 5, 2007 - The Honourable Josée Verner, Minister of Canadian Heritage, Status of Women and Official Languages, today announced the appointment of Hubert T. Lacroix as President and Chief Executive Officer of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC)/ Radio-Canada.

"Hubert T. Lacroix possesses the necessary experience and skills to lead Canada's national public broadcaster," said Minister Verner. "I am confident CBC/Radio-Canada will be well-served by the leadership of Mr. Lacroix."

Mr. Lacroix has practiced law for 30 years with three of Montreal's most prominent firms. He acquired strong credentials in the radio broadcasting and publishing industries through his involvement with Telemedia and other companies. He is also well-known from his work as a television and radio sports analyst for Radio-Canada's summer Olympic broadcasts.

CBC/Radio-Canada is Canada's national public broadcaster and one of its largest cultural institutions. It is the only broadcaster offering services to all Canadians in English and French across Canada and in eight Aboriginal languages across the North. 


*HUBERT T. LACROIX*
Hubert T. Lacroix is a senior advisor with the Montréal office of Stikeman Elliott. Amongst other duties, he contributes to the strategic direction of the law firm. He is included in the 2008 edition of The Best Lawyers of Canada.

Mr. Lacroix received both his Bachelor of Civil Law and his Masters degree in Business Administration from McGill University. He is a member of the Bar since 1977.

During a career spanning 30 years, Mr. Lacroix gained significant experience in various business sectors, including media and publishing, and has recognized expertise in mergers and acquisitions, securities and corporate governance.

Mr. Lacroix acted as senior advisor to Telemedia Ventures Inc. after spending the previous years as the Executive Chairman of Telemedia Corporation and of the other Boards of Directors of the various companies in the Telemedia corporate structure. Before joining Telemedia, he had been a senior partner with another major Canadian law firm where he spent more than 20 years. He is an adjunct professor with the Faculty of Law at Université de Montréal (securities, and mergers and acquisitions).

Mr. Lacroix worked for Radio-Canada as a colour commentator for basketball during the Olympic Games in 1984, 1988 and 1996. During that time he worked for both the radio and television networks. He was also a regular weekly contributor to the Saturday evening sports show Hebdo-Sports on the radio network of Radio-Canada, reporting mainly on amateur sports.

Mr. Lacroix is the Chairman of the Board of SFK Pulp Fund (and a member of the Audit Committee and of the Strategic Planning Committee) and a trustee of the different entities in this unit trust structure. He is also a director of: (i) Zarlink Semiconductor Inc. (chairman of the Audit Committee, and a member of the Executive Committee and of the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee), (ii) Transcontinental Inc. (a member of the Audit Committee and Chairman of the Human Resources Committee), and (iii) ITS Investments Limited Partnership. In addition, he is a trustee of the Lucie and André Chagnon Foundation and a director of their private holding company, a trustee of the Martlet Foundation of McGill University, and a director of the Montréal General Hospital Foundation and of the Fonds de développement du Collège Jean-de-Brébeuf. 

Over the years, Mr. Lacroix also sat on the Boards of Cambior Inc., Donohue Inc., Circo Craft Co. Inc., Adventure Electronics Inc., Michelin Canada Inc. and Secor Inc. 

Mr. Lacroix was amongst the first directors in Canada to complete the ICD Corporate Governance College program designed to help corporate boards exceed governance standards and create globally competitive, higher performing companies in Canada, and holds the certified designation of ICD.D.

In an interview, Lacroix stared that:

"he believes the public broadcaster faces two significant challenges: to stay relevant to a changing population and to raise funds that will keep that audience watching and listening".
"I am going to work very hard to get as much money as we can....if we are constantly compelling and relevant, we're going to try to get revenues from every single possible source to plow it back into programming," he said.
"My job and the mandate that I have taken is clearly to try to make this company evolve in terrific changing times and to create the sense of urgency that I know everybody else around, in every other company competing with CBC/Radio Canada, has."


----------



## Kirkhill (20 Dec 2007)

From today's National Post



> L. Ian MacDonald: *Look who's talking (en Anglais)*
> Posted: December 20, 2007, 11:03 AM by Marni Soupcoff
> L. Ian MacDonald
> 
> ...


----------



## Neill McKay (2 Jan 2008)

Reccesoldier said:
			
		

> In todays world there is no one who can not get their information from a private source (ie not government funded).  Once long ago before the internet, podcasts, satellite tv and all the rest the CBC was the only game in some places.  That is no longer the case, therefore the cause and reason for the CBC's funding is gone as it should be.



Even where the news is concerned, surely nobody is prepared to argue that the CBC is rife with bias while the private broadcasters are completely free of any.  In an imperfect world perhaps the best we can reasonably expect is a balance of bias on both sides of an issue, and let it be up to the intelligent listener, viewer, or reader to take it all in and synthesize his or her own opinion after hearing from all sides.

If the only function of the CBC were to report the news than you'd have a good point, but it does considerably more than that -- including things that private broadcasters would, in all likelihood, not bother doing.  Except where regulations require it, no private broadcaster will ever do much of anything with a goal other than making money for its shareholders.  That's not always consistent with what's in the public interest, nor does it lend itself to serving any community other than the largest and wealthiest (and therefore most attractive to advertisers).


----------



## RangerRay (2 Jan 2008)

Neill McKay said:
			
		

> Even where the news is concerned, surely nobody is prepared to argue that the CBC is rife with bias while the private broadcasters are completely free of any.  In an imperfect world perhaps the best we can reasonably expect is a balance of bias on both sides of an issue, and let it be up to the intelligent listener, viewer, or reader to take it all in and synthesize his or her own opinion after hearing from all sides.



I have no problem with bias as long as it is a) declared for all to know, and b) free of public funds.

In the case of the CBC, it is a Crown corporation (ie. publicly owned and funded) and does not declare it's biases like the Toronto Star or National Post.  In fact, the CBC claims to be fair and balanced.  Many on the right would disagree with that self assessment.

As far as I'm concerned, a private outlet can be as biased as it wants to be.  However, when that broadcaster is a public broadcaster kept afloat by taxpayers' money, it should at least try to be fair and balanced.


----------



## armyvern (2 Jan 2008)

Neill McKay said:
			
		

> Even where the news is concerned, surely nobody is prepared to argue that the CBC is rife with bias while the private broadcasters are completely free of any.  In an imperfect world perhaps the best we can reasonably expect is a balance of bias on both sides of an issue, and let it be up to the intelligent listener, viewer, or reader to take it all in and synthesize his or her own opinion after hearing from all sides.



But, there is quite the difference between dictating what the topic questions will be _exactly_ for a member of the Liberal Party to ask, which also just happens to be the Party who has provided the Chairman for the inquiry no? Especially when those questions are outside the mandate of a *FEDERAL* inquiry, but are allowed due to the bias?

YOU don't see that shit happening in the independant media ... they don't have the insider status to pull that crap off -- and sorry, but I just don't see the CBCs ability to finangle their way and their agenda into "owning"* FEDERAL * inquiries as "in the public interest". What "all sides" are you talking about?


----------



## GAP (2 Jan 2008)

Every aspect of the CBC's reporting is bias against the present government. If you listen to the same subject on CTV, City, etc....the facts are there, but bias isn't (generally...sometimes CTV is just as bad, especially Craig Oliver), but on CBC it just goes on and on and on to the point that I literally turn it to another station.

I would vote that the CBC TV be disbanded/disintered, whatever, just get rid of it.


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (2 Jan 2008)

GAP said:
			
		

> Every aspect of the CBC's reporting is bias against the present government. If you listen to the same subject on CTV, City, etc....the facts are there, but bias isn't (generally...sometimes CTV is just as bad, especially Craig Oliver), but on CBC it just goes on and on and on to the point that I literally turn it to another station.
> 
> I would vote that the CBC TV be disbanded/disintered, whatever, just get rid of it.


Only if CTV will buy the rights for Hockey Night in Canada and Coaches Corner.  ;D


----------



## Good2Golf (2 Jan 2008)

RangerRay said:
			
		

> I have no problem with bias as long as it is a) declared for all to know, and b) free of public funds.
> 
> In the case of the CBC, it is a Crown corporation (ie. publicly owned and funded) and does not declare it's biases like the Toronto Star or National Post.  In fact, the CBC claims to be fair and balanced.  Many on the right would disagree with that self assessment.
> 
> As far as I'm concerned, a private outlet can be as biased as it wants to be.  However, when that broadcaster is a public broadcaster kept afloat by taxpayers' money, it should at least try to be fair and balanced.



+1 !!!

Well said, Ray!


----------



## Reccesoldier (2 Jan 2008)

Neill McKay said:
			
		

> If the only function of the CBC were to report the news than you'd have a good point, but it does considerably more than that -- including things that private broadcasters would, in all likelihood, not bother doing.  Except where regulations require it, no private broadcaster will ever do much of anything with a goal other than making money for its shareholders.  That's not always consistent with what's in the public interest, nor does it lend itself to serving any community other than the largest and wealthiest (and therefore most attractive to advertisers).



Excuse me but what I'm reading makes no sense.  If a private broadcaster has, as you suggest, no incentive to serve the public interest just how then are they making money?  On the other hand you seem to claim that the CBC, a broadcaster funded, whether anyone watches or not, has some sort of moral imperitive to produce what we the people want to see? I think you've got your assumptions back assward.

It is the CBC that has no reason to comply with the wishes of the people, after all they get their taxmoney regardless of what or how good of a job they do providing services to the taxpayer.  A private broadcaster on the other hand must satisfy their audience or there is no money and they go out of business.

So how exactly is a business' interest not consistent with the public interest?  You're not one of those people that equates profit with evil are you?


----------



## Kirkhill (2 Jan 2008)

Reccesoldier said:
			
		

> ....You're not one of those people that equates profit with evil are you?



Probably not.  But he might be one of those people that thinks that there are Truths and Lies as opposed to Information.


----------



## Neill McKay (2 Jan 2008)

Reccesoldier said:
			
		

> Excuse me but what I'm reading makes no sense.  If a private broadcaster has, as you suggest, no incentive to serve the public interest just how then are they making money?  On the other hand you seem to claim that the CBC, a broadcaster funded, whether anyone watches or not, has some sort of moral imperitive to produce what we the people want to see? I think you've got your assumptions back assward.
> 
> It is the CBC that has no reason to comply with the wishes of the people, after all they get their taxmoney regardless of what or how good of a job they do providing services to the taxpayer.  A private broadcaster on the other hand must satisfy their audience or there is no money and they go out of business.



A public broadcaster's customers are the tax-paying public.  If the public are sufficiently unhappy with the CBC they can lobby their MPs to pull the plug.  The fact that this hasn't happened on any significant scale, and the fact that there has historically been some public protest when the CBC's budget has been cut, suggests that  people are listening to and watching the CBC.  "Whether anyone watches or not" is moot -- people obviously are.

Here is the fundamental difference with a private broadcaster: you, the listener or viewer, are not the client.  Advertisers are the clients -- viewers and listeners are the commodity whose time and attention are being sold to the clients.



> So how exactly is a business' interest not consistent with the public interest?  You're not one of those people that equates profit with evil are you?



No I'm not.  But in private broadcasting the business' interests are in serving advertisers, not the public.  While the CBC can (and does) air some programming that appeals to only a small part of the potential audience, such programming might not be able to attract enough advertising dollars to make economic sense for a private broadcaster.  The private broadcaster will seek to make the best use of its air time to maximize its profits.  That's fine with me; we have the CBC to provide for programming that appeals to a variety of smaller groups who would otherwise not be served at all.

The hard-nosed capitalist will say that the market should decide what will be broadcast and if a certain programme's audience is too small for it to be economical then they can just lump it.  But that's not how we work public services in this country.  If it were then a lot of people would be without postal service, transportation (including roads), or medical care, to pick the most obvious examples.  Part of the government's role is to serve those who the private sector will not serve.


----------



## Neill McKay (2 Jan 2008)

RangerRay said:
			
		

> I have no problem with bias as long as it is a) declared for all to know, and b) free of public funds.
> 
> In the case of the CBC, it is a Crown corporation (ie. publicly owned and funded) and does not declare it's biases like the Toronto Star or National Post.



I've read the National Post quite a few times, and certainly found bias in it -- but I've never seen any declaration of that bias.  I'm not familiar with the Toronto Star so no comment from me on that one.



> In fact, the CBC claims to be fair and balanced.  Many on the right would disagree with that self assessment.



Interestingly, so would many on the left.  I understand that the CBC is criticized for being biased in both directions in about equal measure, which suggests that they're doing about as well as anyone could.



> As far as I'm concerned, a private outlet can be as biased as it wants to be.  However, when that broadcaster is a public broadcaster kept afloat by taxpayers' money, it should at least try to be fair and balanced.



And I think on the whole it does.  No doubt many of the hundreds of CBC employees have their own personal biases, but any suggestion that there is some sort of corporate direction that "we shall all slant our stories against the Conservative government" or what-have-you would border on a conspiracy theory.  It is, after all, an organization largely staffed by professional journalists and I'd have a hard time believing that they are all ethically bankrupt.

As part of my civilian job I've spent a lot of time following the media, especially CBC, CTV, and various print outlets.  If someone told me to go and find a slanted story and gave me a really tight deadline I promise you I'd go looking elsewhere than the CBC first.


----------



## Reccesoldier (2 Jan 2008)

Neill McKay said:
			
		

> A public broadcaster's customers are the tax-paying public.  If the public are sufficiently unhappy with the CBC they can lobby their MPs to pull the plug.  The fact that this hasn't happened on any significant scale, and the fact that there has historically been some public protest when the CBC's budget has been cut, suggests that  people are listening to and watching the CBC.  "Whether anyone watches or not" is moot -- people obviously are.



The majority of the population I would argue doesn't think of the CBC at all and as a result the continued funding is a result of apathy, not intent.  The only people I ever recall protesting CBC cuts were those who had a vested interest in the message being deliverd by the CBC. 



> Here is the fundamental difference with a private broadcaster: you, the listener or viewer, are not the client.  Advertisers are the clients -- viewers and listeners are the commodity whose time and attention are being sold to the clients.
> 
> No I'm not.  But in private broadcasting the business' interests are in serving advertisers, not the public.  While the CBC can (and does) air some programming that appeals to only a small part of the potential audience, such programming might not be able to attract enough advertising dollars to make economic sense for a private broadcaster.  The private broadcaster will seek to make the best use of its air time to maximize its profits.  That's fine with me; we have the CBC to provide for programming that appeals to a variety of smaller groups who would otherwise not be served at all.



Right.  So the advertiser is divorced from the broadcaster's need to have an audience?  Your argument doesn't hold water.  In order for the advertiser to make money people have to see the advertizement, that necesitates the broadcaster having shows that people want to see.  And that means that the broadcaster (and the advertizer) must produce a product that comply's with the public interest.

The CBC also advertises.  By your argument this should mean that they aren't responsible to the taxpayers that fund them either.



> The hard-nosed capitalist will say that the market should decide what will be broadcast and if a certain programme's audience is too small for it to be economical then they can just lump it.  But that's not how we work public services in this country.  If it were then a lot of people would be without postal service, transportation (including roads), or medical care, to pick the most obvious examples.  Part of the government's role is to serve those who the private sector will not serve.



Apples and oranges.  Postal service, roads and medical care are considered by the majority of Canadains to be social services in the true meaning of the word, being able to watch "Little Mosque on the Prarie" isn't.


----------



## Roy Harding (2 Jan 2008)

I agree with Neil here.  I can't speak to the television side of things (I rarely watch television, and NEVER watch television news) - but my radio is usually tuned to CBC all day long.  There are some programmes I can't STAND (The Debaters, Definitely Not The Opera, among others) - but in general I find them a fair representer of different points of view.

And - just to add to what Neil said about serving the public where commercial interests won't go - here in Terrace my OTHER choices are First Nations Radio (which isn't bad) or some country station.  That's it.


Roy


----------



## Neill McKay (2 Jan 2008)

Reccesoldier said:
			
		

> The majority of the population I would argue doesn't think of the CBC at all and as a result the continued funding is a result of apathy, not intent.  The only people I ever recall protesting CBC cuts were those who had a vested interest in the message being deliverd by the CBC.



You say that as if there were only one message, which is far from the case.  Or am I misunderstanding you?



> Right.  So the advertiser is divorced from the broadcaster's need to have an audience?  Your argument doesn't hold water.  In order for the advertiser to make money people have to see the advertizement, that necesitates the broadcaster having shows that people want to see.  And that means that the broadcaster (and the advertizer) must produce a product that comply's with the public interest.



When I talk about the "public interest" I mean the good of the public, not simply what the majority of the public are interested in watching.  You're right that a commercial station has to provide programming that people will want to listen to or watch in order to provide an attractive product for its advertisers, however it is not accountable to its audience for the quality of its services.  A public broadcaster is.  A commercial broadcaster's goal is to get a large slice of the audience to watch or listen in order to be able to, in effect, hire out the audience to advertisers.  If that means playing nothing but top-40 music all day because that's what 40 per cent of the audience want to hear then that's what they'll do.  If another 40 per cent want to listen to country someone else will establish a country station to serve that 40 per cent.  The remaining 20 per cent, who don't want to listen to top-40 or country music, will be out of luck.



> The CBC also advertises.  By your argument this should mean that they aren't responsible to the taxpayers that fund them either.



The various CBC television channels advertise.  None of the CBC radio networks do.

Regardless of that distinction, I don't follow your reasoning.  In any case, it's significant that the overwhelming majority of CBC TV viewers are also Canadian taxpayers, so in that particular case they are both clients and the commodity that is being sold to other clients (the advertisers).  A good chunk of the advertisers are also Canadian taxpayers too, of course.



> Apples and oranges.



Not really; I'd say it's a matter of degrees but the principle is the same.  Transportation is more critical to the public good than the CBC, but the fact remains that the promotion of Canadian arts and culture is something that serves the public good yet does not necessarily have the same potential to rake in dollars as, say, CSI: Miami or whatever US programme happens to be popular at the moment.  And that's exactly what we'd be seeing, to the exclusion of just about everything else, if the private sector had free run of the airwaves.


----------



## Reccesoldier (2 Jan 2008)

I understand what you are getting at, really I do, but our outlooks are incompatable.  You see "public good" in Public Radio and TV I see distraction from the things our government really should be doing with that money.

It seems to me that "public good" is a phrase that has been stretched beyond recognition.  Various governments have sought to convince us all that everything they do with OUR money is in the public interest (public good).  From safe injection sites, so we can enable the drug adicted to be drug adicted safely, to free food and shelter so that the homeless industry can keep their customers happy and sufficiently insulated from the reality of paying for their food and housing like everyone else in society, or conversely the mentally ill that fill these places aren't forced to get the treatment that they should because they function in a charity grey zone that keeps them below the radar.  Meanwhile after paying into the system for their entire lives people must wait 2 years for a hip replacement, and crime is a growth industry because ther aren't enough cops on the street.


----------



## Reccesoldier (3 Jan 2008)

This from Stephie Dion in a December 7, 2007 interview on CPAC regarding his pending participation in the Bali conference.



> I'm not there to contradict the government as much as I'm there to help each delegation to go to the right direction.



The second is directly from Mr. Dion's Bali Blog, December 13, 2007.



> Canada’s Environment Minister John Baird has been spreading misinformation since the beginning of the week, trying to force-feed his vision to the 10,000 delegates present, but they won’t be fooled.
> 
> The situation is such that, *at the request of Canadian national media here * on site, I held a press conference in which I was able to deliver the truth.
> 
> First of all, Mr. Baird was not being candid with the assembly and his speech was not consistent with what Canada is actually doing in these negotiations. He tried to make people believe we would stand by our commitments – when he has walked away from Kyoto.



Emphasis mine...

I for one would dearly love to know which of our National Media outlets this was.  I'm thinking you can guess where I'd put my money.


----------



## a_majoor (9 Jan 2008)

Someone somewhere will be assigned to the Northern Saskatchewan newsdesk, but we, the paying public may never find out the full extent of things:

http://torydrroy.blogspot.com/2008/01/cbc-discipline.html



> *CBC discipline*
> The CBC is now admitting there was collusion between their reporter(s) and the grits.
> 
> They further admit this was wrong and the reporter will be punished.
> ...


----------



## Neill McKay (9 Jan 2008)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Someone somewhere will be assigned to the Northern Saskatchewan newsdesk, but we, the paying public may never find out the full extent of things



Should we?  It's not a matter of public information when Private Bloggins screws up and gets a bunch of extras.

Unless the law has been broken it's simply a human resources matter, with all of the usual privacy issues inherent in human resources matters.


----------



## Reccesoldier (9 Jan 2008)

Neill McKay said:
			
		

> Should we?  It's not a matter of public information when Private Bloggins screws up and gets a bunch of extras.
> 
> Unless the law has been broken it's simply a human resources matter, with all of the usual privacy issues inherent in human resources matters.



When Pte Bloggins gets extras it isn't because he's colluding with an opposition political party against the government... If he were you're darn tooting that it would be news with a capital "N" and EVERYBODY would know.


----------



## armyvern (9 Jan 2008)

Reccesoldier said:
			
		

> When Pte Bloggins gets extras it isn't because he's colluding with an opposition political party against the government... If he were you're darn tooting that it would be news with a capital "N" and EVERYBODY would know.



No one said it wasn't unethical (I think it's highly so), but that doesn't make it illegal.

Apples / Oranges


----------



## Fishbone Jones (9 Jan 2008)

CBC-Liberals update

Conservative Party of Canada Director of Political Operations Doug Finley has sent another letter to CBC Ombudsman Vince Carlin. Finley demands satisfaction!
January 8, 2008

Mr. Vince Carlin 
Ombudsman
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation 
P.O. Box 500, Station A
Toronto, Ontario
M5W 1E6

Dear Mr. Carlin:

Back in December I wrote to you and asked that you, in your capacity as CBC Ombudsman, look into an allegation of CBC-Liberal collusion made by former Liberal cabinet minister and current TVA reporter Jean Lapierre. As you will recall Mr. Lapierre told a national television audience that CBC wrote questions for Liberal members on the House of Commons ethics committee.

On December 15th, Canadian Press reported that CBC spokesperson Jeff Keay admitted that a reporter pursued a story in an "inappropriate way" that was inconsistent with the Corporation's "journalistic policies and practices". Further, Canadian Press reported that the particulars of the matter were being investigated by the CBC and that disciplinary action was possible.

Given Mr. Keay's admission to Canadian Press back in December, I was troubled to read his comments in yesterday's edition of the Hill Times. Not only did he refuse to name the reporter who allegedly wrote questions for the Liberals he said he wasn�t sure when the CBC would be willing to do so. Further, he said he was unwilling to characterize the type of discipline the reporter could face.

Mr. Carlin, the CBC has already admitted that inappropriate practices were followed by one of its reporters. Given this I believe it is incumbent upon the Corporation to:

* Update Canadians on the status of the investigation and estimate when the investigation will be completed; and

* Commit to releasing the name of the reporter in question and outline what disciplinary measures have been or will be taken.

While recognizing that Mr. John Cruickshank has, according to CBC policy, up to 20 working days to respond to the substance of my December 14th e-mail I'd ask that you specifically assure me that the Corporation will commit to releasing the name of the reporter in question and outline what disciplinary actions have been - or will be - taken to ensure that Canadians view the CBC as a non-partisan source of news and information.

Sincerely,

Doug Finley 
National Campaign Director
Conservative Party of Canada


----------



## George Wallace (9 Jan 2008)

I am sure they will find some "Fallguy" if they do name a name.   :-\


----------



## Reccesoldier (9 Jan 2008)

More CBC graft.  

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080109.wcbclibrary09/BNStory/Entertainment/home

Bin the whole lot.  

They obviously believe that they are (dare I say) "entitled" to operate separate from any governmental regulations, in spite of being publicly funded, so lets give them their wish and cut the umbilical.


----------



## Bigrex (9 Jan 2008)

And people wonder why the Cons are considered a power hungry regime, they try to disband any organization that criticizes them, first it was the court challenges program that enabled less privileged persons to sue the government, then they wanted to abolish the Senate because the majority are Liberals. They showed preferential treatment to areas and persons that supported the Tories in the last election, ignoring opposition ridings in a partisan back scratching fiasco. Now they are trying to gag the CBC because they have been critical of the Harper reign, and every reporter will have personal opinions, and put them into their articles, some will report every time Harper doesn't allow a minister to talk, call him controlling and over bearing, while others will report that Dion farted while in the HOC and say "If he can't control his bowels, how can he control our country?" or other nonsense. If the Cons spent more time telling the people what exactly they have done instead of what the other parties have done or haven't done in the past, they might garner more support, but since they are master of mud slinging, their campaign will be reduced to nothing more than a "I know you are, but what am I?" battle. If they get a majority in these next election, I wouldn't be surprised if they decreased the HOC sitting time, so they can do whatever they want without having to answer for it to the opposition in question period as often, not that they answer questions anyways.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (9 Jan 2008)

Bigrex said:
			
		

> And people wonder why the Cons are considered a power hungry regime, they try to disband any organization that criticizes them, first it was the court challenges program that enabled less privileged persons to sue the government, then they wanted to abolish the Senate because the majority are Liberals. They showed preferential treatment to areas and persons that supported the Tories in the last election, ignoring opposition ridings in a partisan back scratching fiasco. Now they are trying to gag the CBC because they have been critical of the Harper reign, and every reporter will have personal opinions, and put them into their articles, some will report every time Harper doesn't allow a minister to talk, call him controlling and over bearing, while others will report that Dion farted while in the HOC and say "If he can't control his bowels, how can he control our country?" or other nonsense. If the Cons spent more time telling the people what exactly they have done instead of what the other parties have done or haven't done in the past, they might garner more support, but since they are master of mud slinging, their campaign will be reduced to nothing more than a "I know you are, but what am I?" battle. If they get a majority in these next election, I wouldn't be surprised if they decreased the HOC sitting time, so they can do whatever they want without having to answer for it to the opposition in question period as often, not that they answer questions anyways.



Actually, the CPC are far from alone, wanting to see the CBC disbanded or privatized. I'm personally sick and tired of the tripe they shovel out, for the tax dollars we shovel in.

......and Bigrex, you're just bitter that we finally have a gov't that doesn't believe in wasting our tax dollars on your lieberal utopian socialist dream ;D


----------



## Reccesoldier (9 Jan 2008)

Ah, where to start...



			
				Bigrex said:
			
		

> And people wonder why the Cons are considered a power hungry regime, they try to disband any organization that criticizes them, first it was the court challenges program that enabled less privileged persons to sue the government, then they wanted to abolish the Senate because the majority are Liberals.



It has always been the policy of the Conservatives (the new party) and was always the policy of the Reform/Alliance that if the Senate refused to change to suit the times then it should be abolished.  You know policy, the same kind of policy as the Liberal policy of underfunding the CF. 



> They showed preferential treatment to areas and persons that supported the Tories in the last election, ignoring opposition ridings in a partisan back scratching fiasco.


  

You mean like when the Liberals canned a done deal to move NDHQ out of Downtown Ottawa to the JDS Uniphase building because a Conservative got elected instead of the liberal incumbent in the 2005 election   Pot this is Kettle over...



> Now they are trying to gag the CBC because they have been critical of the Harper reign, and every reporter will have personal opinions, and put them into their articles, some will report every time Harper doesn't allow a minister to talk, call him controlling and over bearing, while others will report that Dion farted while in the HOC and say "If he can't control his bowels, how can he control our country?" or other nonsense.



No one here has said anything about the CBC's critique of the Conservatives, what we are all opposed to is our supposedly "unbiased" publicly funded media acting in collusion with the political opposition.  And in the last article I posted acting contrary to every single government regulation on tendering sales as well as contravention of the free trade act (US and Mexican companies should have had the right to bid as well)



> If the Cons spent more time telling the people what exactly they have done instead of what the other parties have done or haven't done in the past, they might garner more support, but since they are master of mud slinging, their campaign will be reduced to nothing more than a "I know you are, but what am I?" battle. If they get a majority in these next election, I wouldn't be surprised if they decreased the HOC sitting time, so they can do whatever they want without having to answer for it to the opposition in question period as often, not that they answer questions anyways.



Wow, when the Liberals are in power do you put on the rose coloured glasses and slip into a socialist induced stupor?  This is politics as usual.  Do you ever recall the Libs giving into a Con "demand" .  Smoke and mirrors, bread and circuses.  Question period isn't about getting the work of the nation done it's about putting on the very best show, about the 15 second sound bite.


----------



## Bigrex (9 Jan 2008)

You accuse me of wearing rose coloured glasses, ha, that is laughable. If the CBC was supporting the Cons, nobody would be saying a da*med thing, but because it raises questions about the honesty and competence of the Harper Government  you all want it scrapped. The CBC is paid for by public funds (ie: taxes) and since the majority of Canadians who voted did not trust the Cons, then the majority of the taxes raised to pay for the CBC are from people who didn't support the Cons, so the peoples news broadcaster is in line with the peoples views. Also, the reporter, regardless of his occupation is a Canadian citizen, so he has the same right as you or I to approach an MP with concerns, so if he provided a question to an MP on a matter that concerned him as an individual and that MP thought it had merit, why not ask it when given the opportunity.


----------



## armyvern (9 Jan 2008)

Bigrex said:
			
		

> You accuse me of wearing rose coloured glasses, ha, that is laughable. If the CBC was supporting the Cons, nobody would be saying a da*med thing, but because it raises questions about the honesty and competence of the Harper Government  you all want it scrapped. The CBC is paid for by public funds (ie: taxes) and since the majority of Canadians who voted did not trust the Cons, then the majority of the taxes raised to pay for the CBC are from people who didn't support the Cons, so the peoples news broadcaster is in line with the peoples views. Also, the reporter, regardless of his occupation is a Canadian citizen, so he has the same right as you or I to approach an MP with concerns, so if he provided a question to an MP on a matter that concerned him as an individual and that MP thought it had merit, why not ask it when given the opportunity.



Did you miss the bit where people wanted the CBC scrapped during the billion dollar boongoggle et al?

Come on, it's got ZERO to do with them calling down the Conservatives ... as the conservatives were calling for the CBC to be gone the way of the dodo even when it was focused on Liberals/Via Rail/Boondoggles/a Million bucks out on Canadian Flags (ie shit that the Liberals were pulling off and not being called to task for) ...

How soon we forget. Typical.


----------



## midget-boyd91 (9 Jan 2008)

Bigrex said:
			
		

> The CBC is paid for by public funds (ie: taxes) and since the majority of Canadians who voted did not trust the Cons, then the majority of the taxes raised to pay for the CBC are from people who didn't support the Cons, so the peoples news broadcaster is in line with the peoples views.



If it is a news broadcaster, let it be just that....report the news. Not do something to pull support for political parties.
 I don't know about you, but I for one am pretty damned tired of turning on the News and catching all this 'subtle' bias against parties (against *any* party). When I turn on the News I do it to find out what has happened/is happening, *not* to listen to tax dollars being used as political leverage.



> Also, the reporter, regardless of his occupation is a Canadian citizen, so he has the same right as you or I to approach an MP with concerns, so if he provided a question to an MP on a matter that concerned him as an individual and that MP thought it had merit, why not ask it when given the opportunity.



Yes, the reporters are Canadian citizens, and do have the rights to confront their members of Parliment when something concerns them. Those are their rights as Canadians, not their rights when they are supposed to be serving Canadians. (What I'm getting at is that they have the same rights as you and I, but those are their private rights, and because they are serving Canadians, those should not be their workplace rights.) There is no reason whatsoever for them to abuse the fact that they have a wide audience to spread their own beliefs.)

_edited to remove some emboldened text_

midget


----------



## Reccesoldier (9 Jan 2008)

Bigrex said:
			
		

> You accuse me of wearing rose coloured glasses, ha, that is laughable. If the CBC was supporting the Cons, nobody would be saying a da*med thing, but because it raises questions about the honesty and competence of the Harper Government  you all want it scrapped.



Do you even know what this issue is about?  This is in direct reference to the Mulroney/Schreiber circus.  And just to set the record straight Mr. Mulroney was never a member of the Conservative Party of Canada nor was Herr Schreiber, but you knew that, I guess towing your own party line was far too tempting for you.  Facts be damned.



> The CBC is paid for by public funds (ie: taxes) and since the majority of Canadians who voted did not trust the Cons, then the majority of the taxes raised to pay for the CBC are from people who didn't support the Cons, so the peoples news broadcaster is in line with the peoples views.



This has to be the weakest excuse for abuse of influence by the press that I've ever heard.  I can her it now.  "So when the Government ordered me to go to war I refused because they realy didn't win a majority in the house of commons and the opposition parties said I didn't have to."  Pure unadulterated bovine waste.



> Also, the reporter, regardless of his occupation is a Canadian citizen, so he has the same right as you or I to approach an MP with concerns, so if he provided a question to an MP on a matter that concerned him as an individual and that MP thought it had merit, why not ask it when given the opportunity.



Another fine attempt to obscure the real issue.  The MP didn't listen to the complaints of a citizen but took dictation and directed his line of questioning exactly as instructed by the reporter.  Are you honestly saying that you do not see a problem with this collusion between a political party and a public broadcaster?

How about this Rex.  What if the CBC had done the same for the conservatives during the Gomery inquiry?

There is another faccet of this, if the CBC has received the favour of having their questions asked what then was asked of them in return?  Neither a MP nor a reporter gives that kind of pull for free.  In a business that revolves around give and take my question is when will the CBC be asked to softball an issue for the Libs?


----------



## a_majoor (10 Jan 2008)

From Stephen Taylor:

http://www.stephentaylor.ca/archives/000927.html



> January 08, 2008
> *CBC journo out?*
> 
> Tonight, I'm hearing from a very well-placed source that Krista Erickson has cleaned out her desk and is going on "stress leave". Whether this indicates a hushed firing or a quiet reassignment outside of Ottawa politics after a short leave is unclear. (see update)
> ...


----------



## Fishbone Jones (13 Jan 2008)

CBC-LIBERAL COLLUSION: OLD MEDIA AND NEW MEDIA COLLIDE 

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


Friday, January 11, 2008

National Post Misses Mark in Erickson Editorial 

The National Post broke ranks with its mainstream media colleagues Thursday and published an editorial on the CBC investigation of collusion between a CBC reporter and the Liberal Party to damage the elected Conservative government.

The CBC has been counting on MSM solidarity to keep the story out of sight--off the pages of newspapers, off the nightly television newscasts, and definitely off the public's radar.

Their PR problem has just increased exponentially, even though, as you'll see, the National Post failed its responsibility to be as honest with its readers as possible.

The story of the collusion between the CBC and the Liberal Party of Canada is a watershed in journalism in the country.

Never before has the great divide between the Old Media and New Media been so stark.

From the very moment TVA reporter (and former Liberal Party cabinet minister) Jean Lapierre revealed on CTV's Mike Duffy Live that a CBC reporter collaborated with the Liberals to the point of writing questions for a member of the Commons ethics committee, the MSM showed its true colours.

Duffy, looking like he just swallowed poison, called the news libellous or slanderous (he couldn't decide which).

Did he ask the obvious question "Which reporter was it"?

We wish.

Instead he changed the subject and literally tried to push Lapierre away so he couldn't reveal more details. (Thank God for YouTube.) Only after a Liberal researcher confirmed the story did Duffy allow a panel to discuss the collusion.

Since then neither Duffy, Lapierre, nor any CTV reporter has done a follow-up story. Which comes as no surprise since no mainstream media reported the story initially, and the only follow was when CP did a story on the Conservative Party's official complaint to the CBC.

Only then did a few outlets like the National Post and The Toronto Star even mention it. After which the curtain of silence came down again.

Not one of the hundreds of reporters who cover Parliament Hill has done original interviews with Jean Lapierre, Liberal MP Pablo Rodriguez (the benefactor of the CBC's question-writing), Don Newman, host of CBC Newsworld's daily politics show, or even Peter Mansbridge, the recipient of the reporter-in-question's up close-and-cozy attention in Winnipeg during the CBC lockout.

Maclean's columnist Paul Wells spoke for many CBC defenders when he dismissed the story by saying "reporters have been planting questions with MPs at committee hearings since the dawn of time."

Funny how he couldn't remember ever planting a question with the Opposition when the Liberals were in power, but, he claimed, "I'd have done it in a second" if he there had ever been a story that needed advancing.

Amazingly, there was never a single one.

The Blogosphere, on the other hand, approached the story like...well...like reporters.

They started with the question "Who?"

Pretty soon their sources, including many from within the CBC, coughed up a name, Krista Erickson. Then they worked the official CBC spokesmen, News Publisher John Cruickshank and Ombudsman (English Services) Vince Carlin, for comment, publishing e-mail exchanges that advanced the story. And finally, in the public interest, they stimulated discussion about bias in the media, particularly the publicly funded CBC.

If you want the news, you read the Blogosphere. If you want the cover-up, you get it in the mainstream media.

The National Post may have published an editorial calling on the CBC to come clean about its investigation, but to what purpose?

"We want a name" was the headline on the editorial. Yet the Post knows who the reporter under investigation is. Why the pretence?

Why not treat the matter like a real news story, the way the Blogosphere did, and assign a reporter to interview the relevent people, not the least of whom would be Krista Erickson. Does she deny working with the Liberals on questions for the Commons ethics committee? Or will she say her actions are no different than those of her Parliamentary colleagues, Julie Van Dusen and Terry Milewski, whose previously reported actions to embarass Prime Minister Stephen Harper were condoned, and even applauded as gutsy journalism, by CBC brass?

The CBC won't even contemplate that there's an anti-Conservative culture within the corporation. Instead, they're selling the idea that any criticism of the objectivity of the CBC is a partisan attack.

Any discussion of bias in the media is not in the pubic interest, sniffs the CBC publisher.

It's time to ask which public the CBC references when it assigns its Parliamentary reporters.

The left-wing Toronto intelligentsia that makes up their social circle?
Or the taxpayers forced to pay for CBC reporters who work hand-in-hand with the Opposition to defeat the elected government?
__________________
Link


----------



## Reccesoldier (13 Jan 2008)

That the mainstream media is so willing to close ranks and ignore this story should set off alarm bells with every person who believes in an open and free society.

Couple this obscuration with the deafening silence on the Ezra Levant inquisition and the picture isn't just scary its as bleak as a communist apartment block.


----------



## Good2Golf (13 Jan 2008)

Neill McKay said:
			
		

> Should we?  *It's not a matter of public information* when Private Bloggins screws up and gets a bunch of extras.
> 
> Unless the law has been broken it's simply a human resources matter, with all of the usual privacy issues inherent in human resources matters.



As a matter of fact, yes it is.  If Pte Bloggins messes up and is charged under the NDA, it absolutely is a matter of public record.  General Courts Martials are in fact open to the public.


----------



## Neill McKay (14 Jan 2008)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> As a matter of fact, yes it is.  If Pte Bloggins messes up and is charged under the NDA, it absolutely is a matter of public record.  General Courts Martials are in fact open to the public.



Yes, but extras from, say, the RSM, are not.

You have to look at it in the context of my whole post: again, if the reporter has not broken the law and is only being subjected to internal disciplinary action then it is not a matter of public information.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (14 Jan 2008)

Neill McKay said:
			
		

> Yes, but extras from, say, the RSM, are not.
> 
> You have to look at it in the context of my whole post: again, if the reporter has not broken the law and is only being subjected to internal disciplinary action then it is not a matter of public information.



This isn't someone that told the boss to take a hike at the office Christmas party. This is someone that colluded with the Official Opposition to subvert the democratic process of our government. It can't be downplayed and compartmentalized with quaint platitudes about the transgressors rights. They have to be weighed against the rights of the rest of the country. The journalist should have known, or at least thought, about the noose they were sticking their head into. Quietly being shuffled off to become the weather forecaster for Resolute Bay is not the way to handle something of this magnitude.


----------



## armyvern (15 Jan 2008)

My thoughts exactly Dave,

There was an attempt to subvert and influence a Federal Inquiry through the questions posed by the CBC (and like it or not -- she works for the CBC -- it IS a refelcection on their moral & ethical standards). These questions were not within the mandate of the Inquiry, however they were allowed anyway by the member of the Official Opposition heading it up. This screams collusion. Exerting undue influence into an Inquiry which is part of the democratic process in this Country -- lessens MY democratic rights and devalues the strength of MY vote.

The sitting party was elected to govern this nation, and deliberate attempts and collusion by the staff in publicly funded organizations with assistance by the Official Opposition to circumvent and bring down that government via "owning inquiries", despite the will of the Nation's majority of voters, especially in a time when our military is seen to be at war, equals something far greater than "extras" -- it borders on treason in my books.

Here's how I feel: the CBCs "vote" is now worth more than all of those Canadian votes combined who put the Conservatives in power. This is NOT a minor thing. If the CBC wants to state that this was only a "people problem" vice a systemic problem within that PUBLICLY funded organization -- then they'd better start fixing it and letting ME know what happened. I DO pay their salaries after all with my taxes. I want answers. I'm none too happy with what I'm seeing right now happening with my tax dollars there. I _expect_ answers.

Just as anyone would expect answers if something happened in that taxpayer funded org that we call the CF.  Oooops --- I see that CBC already demands answers on _that_ front for anything that tickles their fancy "on behalf of the taxpaying public"; well, CBC -- you're up now. Let's have it.


----------



## Neill McKay (15 Jan 2008)

recceguy said:
			
		

> This isn't someone that told the boss to take a hike at the office Christmas party. This is someone that colluded with the Official Opposition to subvert the democratic process of our government. It can't be downplayed and compartmentalized with quaint platitudes about the transgressors rights. They have to be weighed against the rights of the rest of the country. The journalist should have known, or at least thought, about the noose they were sticking their head into. Quietly being shuffled off to become the weather forecaster for Resolute Bay is not the way to handle something of this magnitude.



Here is what I'm saying on this:

If the reporter has broken the law then she is liable to be tried in court, and the proceedings and outcome will be public.

If the reporter has not broken the law but is still subject to some internal disciplinary process within the CBC then it's a human resources matter and should not be made public any more than your last PER should be.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (15 Jan 2008)

Bullshit! I pay her wage, I own the company (I being the taxpayer) I'm entitled to know what my employees are doing. If they don't like them apples, they can divest and become a private, non government corporation, with no more handouts from me. Then they can keep all the secrets they want, while we watch the company circle the drain to, long overdue, oblivion.

I'm also sure that IF they were caught colluding with the CPC :, the lieberals would find some obscure law, or make one up, that was broken.

State your case, because I'm ignoring it anyway.


----------



## armyvern (15 Jan 2008)

Neill McKay said:
			
		

> Here is what I'm saying on this:
> 
> If the reporter has broken the law then she is liable to be tried in court, and the proceedings and outcome will be public.
> 
> If the reporter has not broken the law but is still subject to some internal disciplinary process within the CBC then it's a human resources matter and should not be made public any more than your last PER should be.



But you see, extra duties _*ARE*_ published in Routine Order Entries under the Duty Listings ... accessable to the public via Access to Information request.

So, no crime committed, ergo no charge laid, but extras assigned for say telling your peer to "piss off". Accessable by the public as we are a federally funded (ie taxpayer) institution.

Why's the CBC to be treated any differently under the circumstances?


----------



## Neill McKay (16 Jan 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> But you see, extra duties _*ARE*_ published in Routine Order Entries under the Duty Listings ... accessable to the public via Access to Information request.
> 
> So, no crime committed, ergo no charge laid, but extras assigned for say telling your peer to "piss off". Accessable by the public as we are a federally funded (ie taxpayer) institution.
> 
> Why's the CBC to be treated any differently under the circumstances?



Okay, bad example on my part -- _If the ROs refer to the extras as such_, as opposed to just blending in with the rest of the duty pers.

What about that PER -- public or not?



			
				recceguy said:
			
		

> State your case, because I'm ignoring it anyway.



How does that advance the discussion?


----------



## Reccesoldier (16 Jan 2008)

Neill McKay said:
			
		

> What about that PER -- public or not?



We're not asking to see her PER.  

You seem to be missing the point.  The actions were intended to publicly discredit a public figure in a public forum by through collusion with another publicly elected official. So why the hell should we the public be hoodwinked into suddenly granting anonymity to either the individual or the punishment meted out?  This persons actions were morally reprehensible, publicly damaging to the ideals of free and balanced media (one of the pillars of democratic government) and we have the right to know who and what is being done about it.

I would go farther though.  Because a free and balanced media is such an important part of a pluralistic democracy I would call a public inquiry into the manner in which the CBC operates in order to determine just how widespread this rot is.


----------



## GAP (16 Jan 2008)

Reccesoldier said:
			
		

> I would go farther though.  Because a free and balanced media is such an important part of a pluralistic democracy I would call a public inquiry into the manner in which the CBC operates in order to determine just how widespread this rot is.



And during this inquiry the guilt ridden CBC employees and mandarins are just going to breakdown in guilt and remorse and tell all?  ;D


----------



## RangerRay (17 Jan 2008)

Wow...where to start...?



			
				Bigrex said:
			
		

> And people wonder why the Cons are considered a power hungry regime, they try to disband any organization that criticizes them, first it was the court challenges program that enabled less privileged persons to sue the government,



The "less priviledged" were not taking advantage of this program.  Special interest groups were in order to circumvent the will of Parilament.  Why should taxpayers pay for special interest groups to over turn laws brought in by democratically elected governments?



> then they wanted to abolish the Senate because the majority are Liberals.



Wrong.  They want to change the current unelected anachronism into an elected and equal body like in the Commonwealth of Australia.  PM Harper only said that if the Senate refuses to reform, then this anachronism should be abolished.  The NDP are the ones calling for outright abolition of the Senate.



> They showed preferential treatment to areas and persons that supported the Tories in the last election, ignoring opposition ridings in a partisan back scratching fiasco.



Not exactly sure what you're talking about here, but the Liberals were famous for patronage.  Just look at the Senate, the Courts, and the upper echelons of the bureaucracy.



> Now they are trying to gag the CBC because they have been critical of the Harper reign,



At this point, the government is not trying to "gag" the CBC.  The Conservative Party (_not_ the government) wrote letters demanding the CBC explain the actions of their reporter.  Individual conservatives have been calling for the privatisation for years (which I agree with).



> and every reporter will have personal opinions, and put them into their articles, some will report every time Harper doesn't allow a minister to talk, call him controlling and over bearing, while others will report that Dion farted while in the HOC and say "If he can't control his bowels, how can he control our country?" or other nonsense.



Yes, reporters have biases.  However, the CBC funded with public funds, and with the mandate of "representing all Canadians" has an added duty to be as politically neutral as possible.  A reporter, feeding questions to an MP, for committee that has nothing to do with the subject of the questions, is interfering in the process rather than reporting the news.  This, along with many other examples, shows that the CBC is not even trying to be politically neutral.  Private media outlets (National Post, Toronto Star) do not have the same obligation to be neutral.



> If the Cons spent more time telling the people what exactly they have done instead of what the other parties have done or haven't done in the past, they might garner more support, but since they are master of mud slinging, their campaign will be reduced to nothing more than a "I know you are, but what am I?" battle. If they get a majority in these next election, I wouldn't be surprised if they decreased the HOC sitting time, so they can do whatever they want without having to answer for it to the opposition in question period as often, not that they answer questions anyways.



I think PM Harper learned from the Grand Master of Canadian politics, Da Liddle Thug from Shawinigan.  Everything you say Harper has done, Chretien has done with the advantage of a majority, and with gusto (gagging MP's, invoking closure, confidence motions on most bills, mud slinging, etc., etc., etc.).


----------



## Bigrex (18 Jan 2008)

Ok, if the reporter had no right to influence the questions by the opposition board member, then neither did the PMO, yet the Torie members not only used PMO written and approved questions, they used briefing notes to the media afterwards that were provided by the PMO as well. At least the Liberal MP had a choice of whether to use someone else's questions, while the Tories were probably told to adhere to what was written or face dismissal from the caucus. 

Harper and the PMO haven't been shy about politically interfering wherever the sheep will let them, instructing committee chairs on how to delay bills at committee and blame the Opposition, Harper peroging (SP?) parliament and killing their own legislation and blaming the liberals. Now they've fired Keen for doing her job. She was hired to ensure the safe operation of nuclear facilities, so when safety was being overlooked, she ordered the reactor shut down for repairs,it was not her concern or responsibility to find alternatives sources for isotopes, that was the Ministers job. If she had failed to act and they had a catastrophic meltdown, then she would have been to blame, but Harper would rather use a Liberal appointee as a scapegoat and void a high paying position so he can give another patronage job to a Torie associate.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (18 Jan 2008)

..and you don't think the Liberal and NDP members stuff wasn't vetted by thier leaders?  Of course it would be, to do otherwise would be pretty friggin' stupid.

..and your blinding hatred is doing the same thing to you.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (18 Jan 2008)

Lessoned Learned.

Go to bed with a lieberal, they'll put on their pants and sneak out before daybreak. Question their motives and you'll be distanced, denied and branded a deranged crack whore, with no credibility. They will deny they even had contact with you.

Bigrex,

The liberal appointees and the products of the Trudeau era are the problem with society today. It is their mantra that is condoning early release, 3 for 1 time of sentence, hug a thug and catch and release of the most violent offenders in our society. The perpetuation of the welfare state to garner votes and get re-elected is their goal. Non work for welfare pay is the ethic they estue. Yet they are the same panty waist, milquetoasts that perpetuate the system, then blame everyone else for the failure of the system. They perpetuate the loss of our system of Charter, Our loss of property rights. The loss of our right of self protection. Depend on the government to protect you while you get mugged or raped? It ends up being your fault and the criminal has more rights than the accused. They perpetute the nanny state extrodinare, then can't fathom why thier utopian socialist system has fallen apart and they have lost control. Rather than admit they may have got some things wrong, they play the opposition blame game where EVERYTHING is EVEYRONE elses fault. Talk to a lieberal. They've done nothing wrong. The people in this country voted for Harper because they were tired of the pompous, overbearing, dictorial government of the Cretin\Mr Dithers governments. Most parties have few scruples when it comes to how they are elected. However, they have some. The lieberals have none, and have proven time and again, both provincially and federally, they will stoop to the lowest levels possibly. Lie, cheat and tell half truths. They will do anything, no matter how despicable, to garner favour, and put themselves in the position to force their personal will on the rest of Canadian society. Under a Liberal government, you as a Canadian, have NO rights. Check into how they have abrogated the Charter before you respond.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (18 Jan 2008)

Of course there are two sides to every story........I'm a lot more fickle with my vote than either one of you.

A few years down the road and you two could still be arguing, only for different parties.

However, we have delved off topic here.


----------



## Armymedic (18 Jan 2008)

Bigrex said:
			
		

> it was not her concern or responsibility to find alternatives sources for isotopes, that was the Ministers job. If she had failed to act and they had a catastrophic meltdown, then she would have been to blame, but Harper would rather use a Liberal appointee as a scapegoat and void a high paying position so he can give another patronage job to a Torie associate.



Bull. The Minister is nothing more han a politcial peon who was put in the portfolio. This case is purely about AECL and AEC covering thier collected asses. It is the role of those people who answer to the minister to give him options and sort out problems. His job is to make sure that his department continues to serve and work for Canadians. Do you think that the MND tells Hillier what regiment want to serve in Afghanistan next?

We as a country put too much wieght into our Cabinet ministers. It is the mandarines under them that make the decisions and sort out the problems.


----------



## GAP (18 Jan 2008)

The heads of both AECL and AEC have been sacked and rightly so....for a variety of reasons, all ass-covering and valid, both did not proform their respective jobs and are gone. Now get somebody in there that is not a political appointee (in either position) and get the job done.


----------



## Bigrex (18 Jan 2008)

St. Micheals Medical Team said:
			
		

> Bull. The Minister is nothing more han a politcial peon who was put in the portfolio. This case is purely about AECL and AEC covering thier collected asses. It is the role of those people who answer to the minister to give him options and sort out problems. His job is to make sure that his department continues to serve and work for Canadians. Do you think that the MND tells Hillier what regiment want to serve in Afghanistan next?
> 
> We as a country put too much wieght into our Cabinet ministers. It is the mandarines under them that make the decisions and sort out the problems.



The MND has also tried to tell Hillier how to do his job, and that is exactly what Lunn did as well, he told Keen what she was supposed to do, which was against the mandate set by her position and was fired when she, as the head of an arms length organization, refused to be politically interfered with . But to use your comparison, if there was a safety concern with our aircraft, where if they continued to fly, loss of life could occur, but by ordering those aircraft to be grounded until adequate repairs are completed, it caused a serious lack of operational capabilities, it would be the MND responsibility to contact other nations to arrange temporary use of aircraft to fill that role, and we all saw how the Tories  reacted when the CDS stepped over his boundaries, according to Harper and the MND, when he made a statement about the possible length of the Afghanistan mission based on his experience as a professional soldier. This is purely about the Tories looking for a scapegoat and in this case, it was Keen. 

And back on topic, by raising complaints about where the Liberal MP acquired his questions and dwelling only on that, they are merely trying to shift focus away from the reason they were meeting, which was the Mulroney-Schrieber case. Emphasizing one scandal to ignore another, because Harper and the Tories don't really care about getting the truth about the situation.


----------



## armyvern (18 Jan 2008)

Bigrex said:
			
		

> ...
> And back on topic, by raising complaints about where the Liberal MP acquired his questions and dwelling only on that, *they are merely trying to shift focus away from the reason they were meeting, which was the Mulroney-Schrieber case. * Emphasizing one scandal to ignore another, because Harper and the Tories don't really care about getting the truth about the situation.



Finally!! An admission by you (see my bold)!! The committee's mandate was to examine the *Airbus* settlement. 

Now you tell me what is appropriate then, about a _supposedly_ neutral taxpayer funded press directing questions to be asked, with the "look-the-other-way" approval of the Head of the Inquiry on a topic absolutely unrelated to the Inquiry topic?? Because, that's exactly what the CBC, with Liberal Party collusion did with the wireless auction line of questions. COMPLETELY outside the mandate. 

And what party is it again that was attempting something scandalous and trying to run in off-topic directions?? Or do you not care when the Liberals do this as long as they pour more funds into the patronage trough, because they certainly don't care about anything other than maintaining their own trough via your rosey vote. Talk about rose coloured glasses.  :

Now do you see the problem?? I'd suspect not ...


----------



## Bigrex (18 Jan 2008)

Any misdealing done by Mulroney is important because it sets the context of his character. If he acted inappropriately recently by lobbying current ministers and using political influence on behalf of a company that he was invested in, then it cannot be positively said that he wouldn't have acted inappropriately during the Airbus time frame and wouldn't have accepted kickbacks or bribes, leopards cannot change their spots. It is similar to charging someone for dealing drugs, but there is no evidence, so he is released and given a hefty settlement for defamation of character, only to arrest the same man again years later, but this time there is evidence, therefor his innocence on the first charge is seriously put in doubt. If it can be proven that Mulroney is a crooked individual now, then it is only reasonable to assume he was a crooked individual back then, he certainly hasn't done anything to disprove it. Our jails are full of people who exhibited "poor judgement".

People may not like the source of the question, but that doesn't diminish the validity of it, in trying to get a picture of what type of person Mulroney truly is.


----------



## armyvern (18 Jan 2008)

Bigrex said:
			
		

> People may not like the source of the question, but that doesn't diminish the validity of it, in trying to get a picture of what type of person Mulroney truly is.



Oh yes, some of our recent Liberal Party leaders have been just sooooooo much better.  :-\

Funny, how when confronted with your own arguement -- you spin off into yet another direction; I'd be getting that prsrciption looked into stat if I were you.

Point of note for you: you have claimed in this very thread that the only reason the Tories are now bitching and that their supporters are now calling for rescinding taxpayers funds from the CBC is because of this Commission. Please look at the very first post in this thread -- perhaps it's even factual enough for you -- given that it's from 2004; well before the Tories were elected as the governing party.


----------



## Hunteroffortune (19 Jan 2008)

Bigrex said:
			
		

> Any misdealing done by Mulroney is important because it sets the context of his character. If he acted inappropriately recently by lobbying current ministers and using political influence on behalf of a company that he was invested in, then it cannot be positively said that he wouldn't have acted inappropriately during the Airbus time frame and wouldn't have accepted kickbacks or bribes, leopards cannot change their spots. It is similar to charging someone for dealing drugs, but there is no evidence, so he is released and given a hefty settlement for defamation of character, only to arrest the same man again years later, but this time there is evidence, therefor his innocence on the first charge is seriously put in doubt. If it can be proven that Mulroney is a crooked individual now, then it is only reasonable to assume he was a crooked individual back then, he certainly hasn't done anything to disprove it. Our jails are full of people who exhibited "poor judgement".
> 
> People may not like the source of the question, but that doesn't diminish the validity of it, in trying to get a picture of what type of person Mulroney truly is.



Any misleading done by a CBC reporter with the collusion of the Liberal Party of Canada is important, because it sets the context of their character. If the CBC reporter and her Liberal buddies were actively compromising the ethics committee, their previous actions should be looked into. 

So, Mulroney was compelled to answer questions from Pablo, dictated by a CBC reporter, and that's okay with Liberals? Let's open up an investigation into the character of Chretien then, he showed bad judgement over Adscam, you know, the 40 million they took from taxpayers that the Liberal party still can't find, how's that for lack of character, and kickbacks and bribes. Like PM Harper said, do you really want me to start investigating former Pm's, maybe they should, and not just Conservative Pm's, maybe the sights should be on some Liberals, like ex-PM Martin and his "unCanadian" shipping company. 

People may not like the source of the question, but that doesn't diminish the validity of it, in trying to get a picture of what type of person/s  Chretien/Martin truly are. 

Watch out for what you wish for.


----------



## Good2Golf (19 Jan 2008)

Chretien still never officially stated when he ceased being a partner in the golf course beside the Grand-Mere Inn in Shawinigan....said he had a receipt for the sale of his shares on something like a napkin (to prove the timeline that he no longer had an interest) when he was lobbying BCD President Francois Beadouin to give a loan to friend and owner of the Grand-Mere Inn, Yvon Duhaime.  There were three partners freely identified, but the Golf Course never identified the fourth shareholder...

What's good for the goose should be good for the gander.  After the conservatives win the next election, I think there should be an ethics hearing into the Adscam bit, worse in both scale and maliciousness, I believe.  Adscam and "Da Boss" (ref).


Mulroney was a choir boy compared to the crap going on on the other side of the fence.

 :

p.s.  Don't forget about the $100M given to Chretien's brother-in-law's company for two 640 Challenger aircraft that the CF hadn't even asked for...but you know how fiscal year-end is when you sometimes have to pump out an unsolicited, untendered contract to your brother-in-law for a tenth of a Billion dollars so you have a upgraded bathroom in your private jet...


----------



## Bigrex (20 Jan 2008)

I've never said that the Liberals were great, or even honest, but just because one party had corrupt leaders in the past doesn't mean I'm going to blindly follow another party, which is what most of you guys are doing. If the conservatives break a promise, I say they broke a promise, you guys only say" well the Lieberals broke plenty of promises". I say a Torie is corrupt IMO,You say ALL liberals were corrupt. Whoever gets into power should be of a higher moral fibre, and when they act immorally, every Canadian should be standing up and crying foul, not sitting on their arses saying, I support his party so I'm gonna let it slide because it's that type of blind partisan obedience and dismissiveness that enables these politicians to take kickbacks and award patronage appointments and breach parliamentary rules. Lets look at some of the things that, as opposition, the tories rallied against but have done the exact same or worse since coming into power.

1.Transparency - Since gaining power, access to information request have been slower to be processed, if at all, and when they do release it, the majority is blacked out, leaving little more than a few ands or the's .
2.Spending on Polls-they said the Libs spent too much money on polls, yet in two years the COns have spent more money than the Libs ever did, and actually have fewer polls, and in some cases having different dept paying twice for the same poll.
3.Accountability-Several  single source contracts, ministers using private jets to ferry them to and from their ridings, A personal groomer/physic for the PM (whom they never did say who paid her wages), the MND lying to the house on several occasions on Afghan detainees, yet he didn't get fired, a minister harassing the head of an arms length commission, Awarding patronage appointments to long time Torie personnel. The list goes on, yet not one firing, except for one MP who didn't toe the party line, but stood up for his constituants.
4. Ignoring the will of the House- Harper, as the leader of the oppostion, once said that if a motion passes in the House of commons, even if not supported by the sitting party, it should still be taken as law. yet when the Veterans first motion was passed in the House in Nov 06, the Tories ignored it, and still haven't acted upon a single point of the five the motion addressed to better the lives of veterans and our families.
5. Leadership- Harper calls himself a strong leader, and in some ways he is, not letting his ministers speak, but on any major issue, the appointing of a board or a commission or an inquiry  to look into the situation before making a decision isn't being a leader. they paid a guy to  look at whether a Mulroney inquiry was needed, even though Harper said that he would order one. the Manly group to look at the future of Afghanistan missions is a waste of money because Harper said that any troop involvement after 09 must pass the House, which it won't, so anything the board suggest will most likely be ignored anyways.
6. Surpluses - the Tories rallied against huge surpluses as Opposition, but have since have had two huge surpluses, and instead of using their brains to think of how that money could have been spent in Canada, they put it towards the deficit.
7. Preferential treatment for big business- the Tories always said that the liberals gave too much away to friends in big business, only to turn around and announce the biggest Corporate tax breaks for big business, doing little or nothing for the small business or struggling ones, if you have no money coming in, who cares what percentage you pay taxes at, 19% and 25% of zero is still zero. But it certainly benefits the oli companies in Torie held Alberta.


----------



## a_majoor (20 Jan 2008)

It seems you have more than drifted off topic; you are steaming full speed towards the horizon.

The point in question is the ethics of a "neutral" news organization funded by taxpayer dollars (i.e yours and mine) openly colluding with one political party for partisan purposes against the sitting government. Let me ask you this: had the CBC reporter dictated questions to a Conservative MP to ask former PM Jean Chretien at an ethics committee hearing on _his_ business dealings, would that be acceptable?

Think carefully now, because if you say *no* you are being hypocritical, and if you are saying *yes* then you are opening a huge can of worms regarding the role of the press and the ability of the elected legislative bodies to act as your representatives.


----------



## Good2Golf (20 Jan 2008)

Thanks, Thuc, that was the point (as well made by Hunteroffortune, above) that should be considered.

It was entirely inappropriate for the CBC reporter to have been interfering with due process, no matter who the hearing was demanding information from.  That Mulroney, or anybody for that matter, was asked a question which ABSOLUTELY had nothing to do with the Commission's mandate, yet was bound to answer because of the wording of the Commission's charter and government policy was IMO an incredibly bad example of misuse of process.  Whomever the chair was, be it the Liberal it was, or other party member it could have been, would be improper to misuse the hearing in such a way.

Ironic that the topic was an ETHICS hearing, and we saw a pretty bad display of ethics (or lack thereof) in its conduct.  Disappointing on two fronts: when viewing poor ethical behaviour of the reporter, and equally disappointing for what I would consider unethical misuse of the hearing by the chair himself.

G2G


----------



## The Bread Guy (21 Jan 2008)

And now, for a bit of closure - this, from the CBC (with MSM coverage links below)....

*CBC releases response to Conservative Party of Canada complaint*

    TORONTO, Jan. 21 /CNW/ - CBC News today released the following letter:

    Doug Finley,
    Director of Political Operations
    Conservative Party of Canada

    January 21, 2008

    Dear Mr. Finley:

    This letter is in response to your complaint to the CBC Ombudsman about
"collusion" involving one of our reporters during the recent
Mulroney/Schreiber hearings in Ottawa, during which questions were asked about
lobbying efforts by Mr. Mulroney directed toward the current federal
government.
   * Following an investigation by senior management of CBC News, we have
determined that our reporter Krista Erickson did, in fact, provide questions
to a Member of Parliament in the lead up to the Ethics Committee meeting in
December.* Those actions, while in pursuit of a journalistically legitimate
story, were inappropriate and inconsistent with CBC News policies and
procedures, specifically under our Principles, Sec. 3:

    "Credibility is dependent not only on qualities such as accuracy and
    fairness in reporting and presentation, but also upon avoidance by both
    the organization and its journalists of associations or contacts which
    could reasonably give rise to perceptions of partiality. Any situation
    which could cause reasonable apprehension that a journalist or the
    organization is biased or under the influence of any pressure group,
    whether ideological, political, financial, social or cultural, must be
    avoided."

*    Our investigation determined there was no bias in related news coverage.
However, our reporter, acting on her own, used inappropriate tactics as a
result of journalistic zeal, rather than partisan interest. CBC News
management has made the decision to reassign its reporter from the story and
to Toronto, effective Jan. 21.*
    Given the potential risk to the journalistic credibility of our Ottawa
bureau, its reporters and CBC News generally, we have chosen on an exceptional
basis to make the detailed outcome of our disciplinary process available to
you, our employees and the public at large.
    I trust this addresses your concerns.
    It is also my responsibility to inform you that if you are not satisfied
with this response, you may wish to submit the matter for review by Vince
Carlin, CBC Ombudsman. The Office of the Ombudsman, an independent and
impartial body reporting directly to the President, is responsible for
evaluating program compliance with the CBC's journalistic policies. The
Ombudsman may be reached by mail at the address shown below, or by fax at
(416) 205-2825, or by e-mail at ombudsman@cbc.ca

    Sincerely,

    John Cruickshank
    Publisher
    CBC News

    Box 500, Station "A",
    Toronto, Ontario
    M5W 1E6

    cc. Vince Carlin, CBC Ombudsman



More from

Canadian Press

CanWest/Global - National Post blog

Globe & Mail

Reuters (U.K.)


----------



## a_majoor (21 Jan 2008)

Another view:

http://www.doggerelparty.ca/2008/01/cbc-buys-new-carpet.html



> *CBC Buys New Carpet...
> 
> ... sweeps Krista Erickson under it.*
> 
> ...


----------



## Reccesoldier (22 Jan 2008)

A new carpet and a promotion to the head office...



> CBC News management has made the decision to reassign its reporter from the story and *to Toronto*, effective Jan. 21.


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (22 Jan 2008)

Reccesoldier said:
			
		

> A new carpet and a promotion to the head office...



Yes that's what most bureaucracies do with those who embarass them...promote them and send them to head office.


----------



## armyvern (22 Jan 2008)

I seem to recall a thread on here somewhere where one of our site emebers had sent in a complaint to Mr Carlin about a video that CBC aired (and which ended up on youtube) where one of their reports had filed the video report and they had deliberately edited in the PM responding to another topic on another day -- to make it look as if he was giving that response to the protestor who had just asked him a question.

I also seem to recall that they noted that there was "no bias", but that the reporter was acting with forementioned "journalistic zeal" with his actions and that they was no deliberate attempt to cast the Convservatives in a bad light.

Seems to be a recurring theme. There's no bias at all - it's simply "journalistic zeal." 

My thoughts? It's "Journalistic zeal" that happens to be occuring much more frequently and obviously -- and funny thing is -- it's never overly "zealisitic" AGAINST the Liberals or FOR the Tories. What are the odds of that being just a random occurance? If that's the case, shouldn't it happen against/for ALL political parties ... thereby giving the CBC some kind of "unbiased" credibility? Sadly, it doesn't -- and that's exactly what makes them biased.


----------



## Neill McKay (22 Jan 2008)

Reccesoldier said:
			
		

> A new carpet and a promotion to the head office...



Being transferred to Toronto is a promotion???


----------



## Rifleman62 (23 Jan 2008)

The bottom line to me is that a Liberal MP was fed questions by a CBC repeater, The Liberal MP appeared (not as a regular member, but as a "guest" member) before the Commons Ethics Committee (CEC), as approved by the LPC (the leader, the Whip?).The Chairman of the CEC, who is a Liberal MP, allowed the guest interrogator to ask out of context questions. Exposure. Liberal MP repeatedly denies being fed the questions. CBC investigates and proves the Liberal MP was fed the questions. The irony is that the LPC was using the Commons Ethics Committee to try and expose the Government of Canada and a former PM (from another political party) perceived lack of ethics. So we have the LPC, a LPC MP, and a LPC Chairman in a conspiracy during the conduct of business of the Commons Ethics Committee. Should these acts of collusion, which clearly show a lack of ethical behavour, not be investigated by the Commons Ethics Committee? This is not so much about the CBC as it is about the conduct of the LPC and its elected members


----------



## midget-boyd91 (23 Jan 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> What are the odds of that being just a random occurance? *If that's the case, shouldn't it happen against/for ALL political parties ... thereby giving the CBC some kind of "unbiased" credibility*? Sadly, it doesn't -- and that's exactly what makes them biased.



  There's where I see the problem. The CBC, funded by tax dollars should be a service to *all* Canadians, left or right. But by taking their not-so-subtle left leaning stance, they've effectively quashed the fact that they are a service to all Canadians, and begin serving only those to the left.
I would be equally tired of the CBC if everything was reversed and they began leaning to the right. I have no problem with left or right leaning TV stations, as long as they've stated publicly where they stand, and are privately funded. The CBC however, are funded by tax dollars, and therefore should report the headlines for the facts..you know, News. Either get rid of the bias within the station, or say bye-bye to funding, get CTV to buy Hockey Night in Canada, and dry the station up.

Midget


----------



## midget-boyd91 (23 Jan 2008)

Forget bias within the CBC.. take a look at the first few paragraphs of this article from the Calgary Herald.

http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/story.html?id=a20d5185-ae51-43ca-8dc9-c6151100ff62



> * Canada fighting losing battle in Afghanistan*
> Don Martin, Calgary Herald
> Published: Wednesday, January 23, 2008
> 
> ...



mmhmm... :

The Calgary Herald, owned by CanWest Global, publicly funded..

Midget


----------



## Kirkhill (23 Jan 2008)

The Don Martin article also appears in the On-Line edition of the National Post.
The National Post also posted this article  by John Ivison.





> Manley report invokes the spirit of Pearson
> Comment: Manley's message aimed at Stephane Dion
> 
> John Ivison, National Post
> ...



I disagree with Martin.  I agree with Ivison.  I don't like Martin's article.  I like Ivison's article.
This is even handed treatment.  
This is what I expect from the CBC if I must pay for it.

I am free not to buy the Calgary Herald. They are free to publish whatever claptrap they see fit.


----------



## Rifleman62 (23 Jan 2008)

I used to enjoy Don Martin. Dry wit. Lately he has appeared very regularly on CBC's Politics with Don Newman, and CTV's Question Period. Draw your own conclusions. To me he is now one of the boys/girls of the lieliberal media. I only skim his pieces now.


----------



## Rifleman62 (25 Jan 2008)

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/editorsblog/

CBC News Editors' Blog

We have to stand apart

Wednesday, January 23, 2008 | 04:37 PM ET
Posted by John Cruickshank, Publisher CBC News

“When, as in the present instance, it is revealed that a reporter has been collaborating, even if only obliquely, with one party or another, an appearance of partisanship emerges that cannot be dispelled by claims that this is how political reporters interact with their sources”.

“In this case, our reporter provided questions to_* two Liberal MPs * _  using her BlackBerry in the hope that these would be put to the former prime minister during the committee hearings”.

Two liberal MPs?  Who was the second one?


----------



## Hunteroffortune (29 Jan 2008)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/editorsblog/
> 
> CBC News Editors' Blog
> 
> ...



That's a VERY good question. We know Pablo (look at my hair) is one of them, who's the other Liberal MP?


----------



## Reccesoldier (30 Jan 2008)

http://blackrod.blogspot.com/2008/01/cruickshank-redemption.html

Yes, lets see some of that CBC bias free transparency...


----------



## Reccesoldier (30 Jan 2008)

To be fair, it isn't just the CBC...



> While it’s indisputable that the Harper government has imposed a strict discipline on government communications and spokespersons (an understandable policy for a conservative government), this can hardly be described as giving reporters the “back of the hand.” What it has given the back of its hand to is the old style of media relations under the Liberals.
> 
> Under that style, Hill reporters were not treated with independence or distance; they were treated as pets to be cultivated and – if deemed sympathetic – rewarded with leaks from inside government, weekly caucus meetings, and not-so-underground leadership campaigns.



Read the whole piece[/url


----------



## RangerRay (30 Jan 2008)

This incestuous relationship between the Parliamentary Press Gallery and the Liberal Party makes me sick to my stomach.

Unfortunately for the PM, by putting them in their proper place, they will wage a war in which they control the message, thereby giving them the upper hand.  I don't know how the PM can get the upper hand when his enemies control the message.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (30 Jan 2008)

Reccesoldier said:
			
		

> To be fair, it isn't just the CBC...
> 
> Read the whole piece[/url




Nope it's not. The libs oughtta be hauled up by the short and curlies also. However, in typical fashion for them, they've abandonded their partners to shoulder the blame while they scurry back to and cower in their rat holes. They have no honour. Lie down with a liebral, you won't get fleas, you'll get bubonic plague.


----------



## RangerRay (8 Feb 2008)

Further example of not just a biased CBC, but of a biased Parliamentary Press Gallery, who control the message.

A little long, but worth the read, only to know the full extent of the biased nature of the MSM.

<a href="http://blackrod.blogspot.com/2008/02/pablogates-two-dead-myths-roadkill-of_07.html">The Black Rod</a>



> -snip-
> 
> Then National Post columnist Don Martin wrote (Open season on Ottawa's flacks, Feb. 1, 2008) that the Parliamentary Press Gallery isn't even pretending to be detached and fair in their latest trumped-up "scandale du jour" where they're attacking PMO (Prime Minister's Office) communications director Sandra Buckler over something about something nobody outside their little circle cares about.
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (8 Feb 2008)

RangerRay said:
			
		

> This incestuous relationship between the Parliamentary Press Gallery and the Liberal Party makes me sick to my stomach.
> 
> Unfortunately for the PM, by putting them in their proper place, they will wage a war in which they control the message, thereby giving them the upper hand.  I don't know how the PM can get the upper hand when his enemies control the message.



Although the PPG can filter and control the feed to the MSM, there is "new media" (i.e. bloggers) that can bring the story to demographics the MSM doesn't reach. As well, the Prime Minister has had reasonable success going to live radio call in shows, providing unfiltered access to voters. Imagine if the technique is expanded to include all Ministers and MP's.

There is enough overlap between the various media audiences that there will be plenty of WTF moments as voters hear the Prime Minister then see/hear/read something totally opposite in the MSM. How this will shake out in practice is hard to predict, but I suspect the biggest losers will be the MSM, as the audience becomes increasingly sceptical of what they are being fed. (My moment of truth was actually academic, since the Keynesian economics I was learning in school were totally out of sync with the real world of "Stagflation" and the triumphant arrival of "Reaganomics". Since Keynesian economics explicitly denies that things like "stagflation" can even exist, much less offer a solution, I had to throw out the "accepted wisdom" and go with the real world).


----------



## RangerRay (9 Feb 2008)

I wish I could believe you about the power of bloggers but from my vantage point, most people I know still get their news and information from the MSM.  Only those of us with interest in these matters (i.e. the Choir) tend to go to blogs for unfiltered information.  As well, the only talk radio that people here can tune into is CBC.  'Independent' talk radio only exists in the large cities.  Sure, you can get streaming radio via internet, but again only those of us in the Choir seek it out.  I am the only one I know amongst my friends and co-workers who seek alternative sources of information not normally available in rural areas.  The masses don't seek it, so what they are exposed to is the same-old, same-old.  People are fed spin and do not even know it.


----------



## Roy Harding (12 Feb 2008)

RangerRay said:
			
		

> I wish I could believe you about the power of bloggers but from my vantage point, most people I know still get their news and information from the MSM.  Only those of us with interest in these matters (i.e. the Choir) tend to go to blogs for unfiltered information.  As well, the only talk radio that people here can tune into is CBC.  'Independent' talk radio only exists in the large cities.  Sure, you can get streaming radio via internet, but again only those of us in the Choir seek it out.  I am the only one I know amongst my friends and co-workers who seek alternative sources of information not normally available in rural areas.  The masses don't seek it, so what they are exposed to is the same-old, same-old.  People are fed spin and do not even know it.



That pretty much sums up what I see, too.

I can get CBC on the radio (which I enjoy, just to be candid) - but other than that, I'm restricted (on the airwaves), to a country station, and a "First Nations" soft rock station.  That's it - that's all she wrote out here.

I DO seek out alternatives on the 'Net.  BUT - as RangerRay outlined above - I think I'm a minority.


----------



## a_majoor (13 Feb 2008)

Yes, "new media" has a smaller footprint than other sources, especially in the hinterlands, but (sadly) your opinion doesn't count as much in the halls of power as the metropolitan areas, which are serviced by lots of different sorts of media.

On the other hand, you, the reader, do access the Internet and alternative sources of information and are therefore a purveyor of the most powerful weapon of information warfare: word of mouth.


----------



## Reccesoldier (13 Feb 2008)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Yes, "new media" has a smaller footprint than other sources, especially in the hinterlands, but (sadly) your opinion doesn't count as much in the halls of power as the metropolitan areas, which are serviced by lots of different sorts of media.
> 
> On the other hand, you, the reader, do access the Internet and alternative sources of information and are therefore a purveyor of the most powerful weapon of information warfare: word of mouth.



Unbelievably though when someone who does use non-traditional sources counters a newsy's opinion with facts (however strong and correct they may be) from the net, we are often met by the same sort of skepticism or hostility that the person who cites Wikipaedia meets on this site.  ;D


----------



## RangerRay (13 Feb 2008)

Often times when I relate news and information I gather from the blogosphere, I get looked at like I'm wearing a tinfoil hat!  Most people still take the MSM at their word.


----------



## midget-boyd91 (13 Feb 2008)

I'll be the first to say that facebook invites can be a pain in the almighty wazoo when they come 25 per hour, but I couldn't _not_ join this group when I saw it.
I guess this would be the only thread going for this, so here it is.
CBC Bias Sucks http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2315820862

Midget


----------



## Yrys (13 Feb 2008)

uncle-midget-boyd said:
			
		

> I'll be the first to say that facebook invites can be a pain in the almighty wazoo when they come 25 per hour, but I couldn't _not_ join this group when I saw it.
> I guess this would be the only thread going for this, so here it is.
> CBC Bias Sucks http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2315820862





> This group has 4 members.



You'll need to do spme recruiting. but I think you'Re in the right place for that .

Add : Now, THAT group seems to have a lesser recruitmment problem 


1,000,000 Strong For Rick Mercer



> This group has 56,379 members.


----------



## Kirkhill (16 Feb 2008)

I don't think anyone else has referenced this article yet.   I was debating putting it in as a separate thread but seeing as how this thread has morphed from the CBC to include the media generally it seems to fit.  Perhaps a name change is in order: something like "The CBC and Media Bias".

In the article Martin makes many of the points that others of us have made.  But for Martin, Right is Wrong and Left is Right.



> As the media tilt rightward, so will the country
> LAWRENCE MARTIN
> 
> From Thursday's Globe and Mail
> ...



It doesn't really matter whether Mr. Martin is right or wrong on the importance of preserving Trudeaunianism.  Nor does it matter if he is right on his assessment of the Aspers et al.   What does matter is his final shot "You can change how it (a country) sees itself by changing the character of its media".

Ultimately this is and was the purpose of Mr. Martin and his fellow torch-bearers.  They were, and are, secular acolytes dedicated to changing society in their image.  They were, and are, every bit as dedicated to their task as warring Dominicans and Franciscans or Jesuits and Recollets.

This observation is not new.  

What is new is that one of the Media would come out so openly and declare how they see themselves.    Lawrence Martin's real fear is that he and his version of right will be replaced by an alternate with which he disagrees.

What is most remarkable to me is that he is declaring openly his belief in the power of his bully pulpit.

On that basis isn't it fair to review all his "reports" from campaign trails and question his objectivity?  And all of his "friends" and "fellow-travelers"?


----------



## Roy Harding (16 Feb 2008)

Reccesoldier said:
			
		

> Unbelievably though when someone who does use non-traditional sources counters a newsy's opinion with facts (however strong and correct they may be) from the net, we are often met by the same sort of skepticism or hostility that the person who cites Wikipaedia meets on this site.  ;D



That's an excellent observation, Reccesoldier - and to an extent I agree with you.  I would argue, however, that Reuters, CP, AP, et al actually have a hard earned reputation to protect - and therefore do their best to make sure what they present is, in fact, fact.  The same does not (yet) hold true of most internet sources such as blogs, etcetera.


----------



## RangerRay (16 Feb 2008)

I'm not sure if I agree with Martin's contention that the Aspers are "pro-Conservative".  Were they not Liberal fundraisers?  Did they not support Chretien?  I remember when they took over the _National Post_, the investigative reporting into "Shawinigate" suddenly stopped.  Now the _Post_ has somewhat regained some of its pro-conservative slant, but I really can't say that about all CanWest publications.

As well, I really don't find CTV pro-conservative either.  In some cases, I find it far more pro-Liberal than the CBC!  You can't tell me that Craig Oliver or Jane Taber or Tory hacks!  Are the owners of CTV and the Globe and Mail, the Thompson family, also not supporters of the Liberal Party?

But I will agree that Rex Murphy is a diamond in the rough at the Ceeb.  ;D


----------



## Simon (17 Feb 2008)

hey guys, been a while, been in a shitstorm, dust is settling, on the above topic i have attached an interesting article, im sure most have probably seen it but ill post anyway.
cheers


http://www.mediaright.ca/MSMbias.htm


----------



## ModlrMike (17 Feb 2008)

Excellent essay. It should be required reading before accepting an MSM source as valid.


----------



## Kirkhill (17 Feb 2008)

Good link Simon.  It speaks to the "How" it is possible to use to media to create a story and sell it.  However I still find Lawrence Martin's piece more remarkable as it speaks to the "Why": the intent or the motive.  I can't think that I have ever seen or heard, more clearly stated, by a leading member of the press, an expression of the press's belief in its own power and it's willingness to use that power.  It puts the lie to the notion of the unbiased media and clearly defines a willingness and an intent to manipulate.


----------



## Flip (21 Feb 2008)

I don't know where else to put this......

Did anyone see last night Inside The Mission panel on the National last night.

There was a panel of three and Peter Mansbridge.

Sally Armstrong - Authour and film maker.
Lewis MacKenzie - you KNOW who he is.
and of course Steven Staples.

I was surprized, my wife thought I had gone barking mad when I caught the last few moments of the broadcast and I heard Mr Staples.
I switched over to a different time zone and watched the whole broadcast.

Sally Armstrong started with her statement and made a point for Canada's 
participation in Afghanistan clearly and in a manner anyone could understand.
Kudos to Sally.

Lewis Mackenzie made his point but in a manner that preached to the choir.

Mr Staples embarassed himself with "we have to learn the root cause of the 
conflict" or something like that. I wasn't so mad at him when I watched how 
he had failed.  ;D

All in all I would say is that if there was a bias it was mildly pro-mission.
I have a new hero in Sally Armsrong. She made it real for civvies.  ;D

Anyhow....Anyone else?

Edit: to add link:http://www.cbc.ca/national/blog/special_feature/inside_the_mission/panel_discussion.html


----------



## a_majoor (21 Feb 2008)

I saw that but could hardly put it down to bias. 

Steven Staples embarrased himself before a national audience because he did not have/know the facts to back up his position. Some shining examples; suggesting we or the GOA needed to open negotiations with the Taliban (already in play for several years, a fact Gen MacKenzie had to remind him of _twice_), talking about discovering "root causes" without stopping to think that the "Root Causetm" of the insurgency is a lust for power, suggesting the security situation and war is being lost (rather debatable considering the Taliban now take pains to avoid direct confrontation with Canadian elements in the Kandahar region, while we have freedom of movement and action) and even repeating the Taliban's rather transparent ploy of requesting a cease fire and withdrawl of Western forces (while they rearm and prepare to overturn a now weakened government of Afghanistan).

Frankly, if Mr Staples is reading this, he better start doing some serious research before he appears in public. Right now the Rideau Institute simply parrots NDP campaign platform planks; if I want some left wing meat I look to the Selenis Council since their people are actually on the ground in southern Afghanistan. I may not agree with much of what they say but I take them seriously.

As for the CBC, they chose Mr Staples as a guest for their own reasons. Since he put in such a weak performance, we can only shake our heads and wonder what the producers and bookers were thinking.


----------



## Edward Campbell (21 Feb 2008)

I think we need to remember that *”The News”* in our world is a commercial enterprise – much, much, much more about selling soap than about informing the public.

Watch the CBC or CTV or Global newscasts. They are “free” to you because advertisers pay, and pay well for the news ‘shows.’

Ditto newspapers: your monthly subscription pays only a small fraction of the cost of getting a paper to your doorstep every morning. Advertising is what the business is all about.

The ‘journalists’ in all media are, actually, sales staff. They sell eyes and ears (readers, viewers and listeners) to advertisers. The *better* the news ‘show’ the more the network or station can charge per second of advertising.

What makes good news? *Drama! Excitement! Sex! Violence!* and *Conflict!*

The news ‘shows’ need to get as much sex and conflict into each show as possible. Peter Mansbridge cannot just have an informative conversation with a real, honest-gawd expert; he must preside over a *conflict* – a shouting match in which people, no matter how ill-informed or prejudiced,  argue about issues. Both Lew MacKenzie and Stephen Staples are *mouths for hire* – but some work for nothing, just to get and keep their name/face out in the public eye in order to keep their ‘day job’ (e.g. The Rideau Institute) in the black.

Don’t blame the CBC: they’re just trying to stay afloat in a highly competitive market – there are all kinds of news ‘shows,’ competing 24/7 for your attention. Don’t blame Stephen Staples: he’s doing exactly the same thing – there are all kinds of talking heads, a (very) few of whom even get paid for their time and effort, competing for space on the many, many news ‘shows.’

It’s show business, folks; if a little bit of useful information happens to get passed to the Canadian people, well, that’s a bonus.


----------



## The Bread Guy (21 Feb 2008)

Bang on analysis, E.R., with only one tiny exception....



			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> The ‘journalists’ in all media are, actually, sales staff. They sell eyes and ears (readers, viewers and listeners) to advertisers.



To be completely fair, one would have to say the MEDIA OUTLET is the entity selling eyes/ears to advertisers.  Sort of like the difference between the BATTALION or ARMY getting the job done, as opposed to the role of the INDIVIDUAL TROOPS.  That's not to say the institution doesn't affect how the individuals do their work, though....

Also liked the MSM 101 piece very much.


----------



## Edward Campbell (21 Feb 2008)

milnewstbay said:
			
		

> Bang on analysis, E.R., with only one tiny exception....
> 
> To be completely fair, one would have to say the MEDIA OUTLET is the entity selling eyes/ears to advertisers.  Sort of like the difference between the BATTALION or ARMY getting the job done, as opposed to the role of the INDIVIDUAL TROOPS.  That's not to say the institution doesn't affect how the individuals do their work, though....
> 
> Also liked the MSM 101 piece very much.



While I accept that the selling job is done by the entire _media outlet_, in the 'news' departments the journalists themselves have 'value' beyond their ability to write or read the news. Sex appeal, _star power_ and other _draw_ factors have a marked effect on the *value* (to the advertiser) of each news 'show.' Journalists are 'front-line' sales staff members - and important ones, too.


----------



## Edward Campbell (25 Feb 2008)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of today’s _Globe and Mail_, is an *unbiased* piece that speaks to one of my pet peeves: the *requirement* for sex appeal:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080225.wcomartin25/BNStory/Front/home


> *Commentary*
> 
> Canada's uncharismatic leaders: all cattle, no hat
> 
> ...



Lawrence Martin is not well known as a friend and supporter of Stephen Harper, but, in this case, the Prime Minister’s _handlers_ and, especially, his so called _communications_ staff would do well to listen to Martin. It is undeniably true that _“Style has no business triumphing over substance. But,”_ as Martin says, _“this being politics, it happens.”_ Mr. Harper appears to be a skilled political tactician, it surprises me that he is so dense to the obvious: people do not like him. Since they do not like him they are less likely to vote for the party he leads, despite good (or at least not too bad) policies and actions.

Specifically, Stephen Harper needs to learn from Barak Obama; he needs to enunciate a national “aim,” the _”vision thing”_ – as George Bush Sr. put it. Then he needs to set out the goals we Canadians must accomplish to achieve that aim – including the national security, foreign, fiscal, social and defence policies that will help us to achieve and maintain peace and prosperity for ourselves and, if not real peace and prosperity, at least freedom from terror and slavery for the people of the world.

If Harper (and Dion and Layton, too) fail to _connect_ with the Canadian people then we are likely to go back to the ‘60s and choose an unknown, untried, unqualified but undeniably *charismatic* ‘leader’ – but this time Justin Trudeau – based solely on sex appeal.


----------



## The Bread Guy (26 Feb 2008)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> ....journalists themselves have 'value' beyond their ability to write or read the news. Sex appeal, _star power_ and other _draw_ factors have a marked effect on the *value* (to the advertiser) of each news 'show.' Journalists are 'front-line' sales staff members - and important ones, too.



In THAT respect, at least on TV in the case of newscasters and some senior reporters, I'd have to agree.


----------



## Kirkhill (27 Feb 2008)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> ....Mr. Harper appears to be a skilled political tactician, it surprises me that he is so dense to the obvious: people do not like him. Since they do not like him they are less likely to vote for the party he leads, despite good (or at least not too bad) policies and actions......



I don't know if it the PM is particularly dense on the point.  It may just be considered irrelevant. If you read Johnson on Harper Harper was always a loner with a tight, small circle of friends and who drew his principle support and role models from within his immediate family.  His self-perception is probably that of somebody who has succeeded as much as he has _despite_ not being generally "liked".

Couple that with the point made by Greg Weston (shudder) in Rote, Rote, Rote Your Vote, that something like 25% of Canadians will self-identify with the Liberal Party of Canada even if it were led by a fence post (step forward Mr. Dion and take a bow) and he may continue to believe that he has little reason to change what has worked for him to date.  Something like 35-45% of Canadians are just unreachable by him.  (25% Reflexive Liberals, 5-10% Reflexive Socialists, 5-10% Reflexive Bloquistes).  He needs to do what he can with the remaining 55-65% of the population.

The one area that Weston's column doesn't address is how many of those self-identified Fence Post Liberals actually bother to vote.  It would not surprise me at all if many of those "Liberals" are actually MIA during the election period.  That would explain why polls between elections seldom reflect the outcome of elections.


----------



## Edward Campbell (29 Feb 2008)

This story, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_, speaks volumes about the mainstream media’s unhealthy self-absorption:

 http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080229.wharrymedia0229/BNStory/Front


> Media's embargo on 'Harry's war' sparks debate
> 
> LUKE BAKER
> 
> ...



Harry is a celebrity and in this _age of celebrity_ where, as _Globe_ columnist Lawrence Martin put it “Style has no business triumphing over substance. But this being politics, it happens” the “news” is made by reports of celebrity comings and goings.

With regard to _embargos_: they seem to me to be legitimate tools that benefit all. Consider the budget. Journalists (and others) are “locked up” for the day, before the Minister of Finance speaks, with the budget documents and senior officials so that they can prepare complete and accurate, albeit often _coloured_ reports for Canadians. In the case of Prince Harry (who is a bullet magnet and a hugely valuable target) the embargo was imposed to protect lives; that seems reasonable enough to me.

The relationship between the _blogosphere_ and the mainstream media (MSM) is often debated, usually to the detriment of the MSM, but what this story indicates is that legitimate issues like OPSEC and PERSEC might be beyond control *if* the blogs are _free_ of restraint or immune to consequences.

I suppose if one is sufficiently imaginative and cares nothing at all for the precious _rights_ of the bloggers then some form of _retribution_ seems possible, perhaps even desirable.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (29 Feb 2008)

> Jon Snow, the presenter of television's Channel 4 news, wrote in his blog that the affair could be damaging for media credibility.
> 
> “One wonders whether viewers, readers and listeners will ever want to trust media bosses again,” he wrote.



One wonders what kind of rose coloured world he is living in, that he thinks they are trusted now. :


----------



## Reccesoldier (2 Mar 2008)

Did anyone even ask the Blogs to refrain from disclosing the information?  I mean you can't really expect compliance unless you know what you are complying with.


----------



## a_majoor (3 Mar 2008)

I would be interested to see how the Canadian media "suggests" stories be covered:

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2008/03/orwellian-journ.html



> *Orwellian Journalism*
> 
> The media aligned with the jihad force teach the group think. Media bias, priming the American people. Chris over in the UK sent me the following.
> 
> ...


----------



## Slim (3 Mar 2008)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> I would be interested to see how the Canadian media "suggests" stories be covered:
> 
> http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2008/03/orwellian-journ.html



Canadian MSM...I kind of picture a snake-oil salesman standing on a box saying anything and everything in order to get those snake-oil bottles out the door...

And...to my mind at least...MSM still has NOT figured out exactly what Racial Profiling is. But it sounds so utterly damning that they continue to se the phrase whenever they want to get across police or military misconduct in a theatre of operations.


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (3 Mar 2008)

I'm not really sure what your problem is with the MSM trying to give a broader coverage of Muslims and eastern culture. Muslims as a Religion are as diverse as Christians and Westerners...I think it's a good thing not to play to stereotypes in coverage of complex issues. Is every Muslim a fanatical jihadist...most certainly not! Is every Muslim a fundamental follower of every jot and tittle in the Koran....again most assuredly not. Your quotes at the end of the quote make it look like every one who is a Muslim is a fanatic.....there are some pretty hair raising quotes from the Old Testament and the New Testament which paint Judaism and Christianity as pretty intolerant and militant as well but most folks dont' quote or go by that stuff. 

 I'm not in favour of Racial profiling in the respect that we shouldn't be giving a full body cavity search to everyone of a certain race or culture but at the same time we have to be smart...if a certain individual who is also from a "high risk group" is presenting at a security check point let's be thorough while giving the benefit of the doubt. Once we start treating people as automatically under suspicion in our society the Terrorists have won and we are no longer an open and diverse society.


----------



## Slim (4 Mar 2008)

IN HOC SIGNO said:
			
		

> I'm not really sure what your problem is with the MSM trying to give a broader coverage of Muslims and eastern culture. Muslims as a Religion are as diverse as Christians and Westerners...I think it's a good thing not to play to stereotypes in coverage of complex issues. Is every Muslim a fanatical jihadist...most certainly not! Is every Muslim a fundamental follower of every jot and tittle in the Koran....again most assuredly not. Your quotes at the end of the quote make it look like every one who is a Muslim is a fanatic.....there are some pretty hair raising quotes from the Old Testament and the New Testament which paint Judaism and Christianity as pretty intolerant and militant as well but most folks dont' quote or go by that stuff.



Careful Padre...No need to start swinging a sword over an issue that I wasn't even addressing...My complaint is with the way that MSM expresses itself and how they mix truth and lies in order to make stories more interesting in order to sell more papers/airtime/tv spots...not other culters and their (lack of) representation. 

You need to calm down, read what others are posting a bit more carefully before going off and slagging people for their (supposed) view points. :tsktsk:



> I'm not in favour of Racial profiling in the respect that we shouldn't be giving a full body cavity search to everyone of a certain race or culture but at the same time we have to be smart...if a certain individual who is also from a "high risk group" is presenting at a security check point let's be thorough while giving the benefit of the doubt. Once we start treating people as automatically under suspicion in our society the Terrorists have won and we are no longer an open and diverse society.



Thanks for proving that you haven't a clue as to what the police and military consider racial profiling to be. Its a demographically based intelligence gathering system...Not picking out everyone at the border that's a different colour. It's a valid tool that is used by professional agencies to gather information...Not strip search people.

Lets try to be a tad more diplomatic, rather than confrontationalist please.

Slim
Directing Staff.


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (4 Mar 2008)

Slim said:
			
		

> Careful Padre...No need to start swinging a sword over an issue that I wasn't even addressing...My complaint is with the way that MSM expresses itself and how they mix truth and lies in order to make stories more interesting in order to sell more papers/airtime/tv spots...not other culters and their (lack of) representation.
> 
> You need to calm down, read what others are posting a bit more carefully before going off and slagging people for their (supposed) view points. :tsktsk:
> 
> ...



I don't think I was being hysterical or un-calm....I was responding to the fellow above you and not yourself who posted something about a Journalist's conference in which they were being advised to be fair when printing articles and pictures about other cultures and races which in my opinion is a good thing. 

Thanks for letting me know that after thirty years around the military and RCMP I haven't got a clue, that's not too rude is it? 
I wasn't being confrontational nor un-diplomatic I was expressing an alternate opinion...of which I think I'm entitled


----------



## Slim (4 Mar 2008)

IN HOC SIGNO said:
			
		

> I don't think I was being hysterical or un-calm....I was responding to the fellow above you and not yourself who posted something about a Journalist's conference in which they were being advised to be fair when printing articles and pictures about other cultures and races which in my opinion is a good thing.
> 
> Thanks for letting me know that after thirty years around the military and RCMP I haven't got a clue, that's not too rude is it?
> I wasn't being confrontational nor un-diplomatic I was expressing an alternate opinion...of which I think I'm entitled



Well mate you've gone and done it again...

I was speaking specifically about not understanding ratial profiling..As indeed most of the western worlld does not (once again MSM is to thank for that!) not about your broad expereince in the CF...I've read your profile and know who you are. 

I'm not discounting your experience.

What I am commenting on is that you seem to want to jump before reading.

I also acknowledge the fact that you were responding to the fellow above my post. Thanks for clarifying that.

Slim


----------



## a_majoor (6 Mar 2008)

A bit of a laugh for you all:

http://www.officiallyscrewed.com/blog/?p=914



> *Straight From Battling A Lion Into The Jaws Of The Media*
> Filed under: Politics-Federal, Humour, MSM Bias — TrustOnlyMulder @ 5:27 pm
> 
> An MP is driving by the zoo, when he sees a little girl leaning into the lion’s cage. Suddenly, the lion grabs her by the cuff of her jacket and tries to pull her inside to slaughter her, under the eyes of her screaming parents.
> ...


----------



## Slim (7 Mar 2008)

I'd be laughing very hard right now if I didn't think that it wouldn't really happen...


----------



## a_majoor (12 Mar 2008)

An American newsman shows how media bias works over there. Watch how the original segment gets twisted 1800.

http://bleatmop.blogspot.com/2008/03/glenn-beck-real-story-how-liberal-media.html


----------



## Z50C (17 Mar 2008)

Hi,

Not to get off topic, but has anyone else seen the fire storm this latest lost of a comrade has caused on the CBC news web page. Check out some of the comments at http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2008/03/17/soldier-canadian.html

RIP Brother... "His place shall never be with those cold timid souls that know neither victory or defeat."


Marc


----------



## OldSolduer (17 Mar 2008)

The Opium Trade in Afghanistan will be on Newsworld starting in about 2 minutes.....lets see what CBC does to this one.


----------



## Yrys (17 Mar 2008)

CBC Newsworld schedule


----------



## zipperhead_cop (23 Mar 2008)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> An American newsman shows how media bias works over there. Watch how the original segment gets twisted 1800.
> 
> http://bleatmop.blogspot.com/2008/03/glenn-beck-real-story-how-liberal-media.html



That link doesn't seem to work.  Anything you can re-post?


----------



## Trinity (23 Mar 2008)

http://bleatmop.blogspot.com/2008/03/proof-of-msm-liberal-bias.html


The post was renamed hence the link doesn't work.

VERY interesting video by Glen Beck.  A MUST WATCH.


----------



## Edward Campbell (20 Aug 2008)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I think we need to remember that *”The News”* in our world is a commercial enterprise – much, much, much more about selling soap than about informing the public.
> 
> Watch the CBC or CTV or Global newscasts. They are “free” to you because advertisers pay, and pay well for the news ‘shows.’
> 
> ...




I have long held that the only reason people like Stephen Staples and Sunil Ram get so much _’face time’_ on TV is that journalists insist on some sort of false balance. Even if the story is *“Canadian soldiers build school in Kandahar”* the media feels compelled to trot out an anti-war type. That ‘compulsion’ is not driven by any sense of ‘fairness,’ it is a *requirement* of the omnipresent drive for *controversy* – controversy sells soap, “Canadian soldiers build school ...” does not. It’s the “Man bites dog” rule re: the definition of ‘news.’ 

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _National Post_ is an opinion piece by Canadian military historian Jack Granatstein:

http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/story.html?id=735103


> The new peace movement
> 
> J. L. Granatstein, National Post
> 
> ...



I think Prof. Granatstein makes several good points:

1. There is a legitimate, respectable – but, sadly, boring – “peace movement” out there, centred on e.g. Project Plowshares (about which I have commented favourably in the recent past). The problem is that it is boring and the requirement is for controversy so real, honest ‘balance’ and ‘objectivity’ go out the media’s window;

2. The driving force behind the media’s favourites is not *peace* or even ‘anti-war,’ it is juvenile, knee-jerk anti-Americanism of the sort which animates a substantial minority of Canadians – those who are least informed and least able to reason;* and

3. It is, indeed, sad that the real, intellectually honest peace movement is being silenced – by media ignorance and commercial imperatives for controversy. The broad *strategic* debate needs strong, reasoned voices on all sides. We will never get that from Barlow, Ram, Staples, _et al_. They have a different, self serving (rather than nation serving) agenda.


--------------------
* There is an intellectually honest, reasonable *anti-American* position. It is based on one's analysis of attitudes and actions at and near the 'top' of the US political heap. Fair minded people can debate that position fairly. Barlow, Ram and Staples and their fellow travellers are not in the 'fair' or 'reasoned' business; they are in a symbiotic relationship feeding off their collective need for controversy - the more mindless the better.


----------



## Edward Campbell (21 Aug 2008)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _National Post_ is Steven Staples’ response to Jack Granatstein’s recent article:

http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/story.html?id=737740


> Understanding the peace movement
> 
> National Post
> Published: Thursday, August 21, 2008
> ...



I have no comment on Staples’ comments on Granatstein’s ....


----------



## vonGarvin (21 Aug 2008)

> It may be frustrating for the military dinosaurs, but Canadians will not give up the idea   *myth * of Canada as a peacekeeper.


----------



## George Wallace (21 Aug 2008)

I do, but he upsets too easily.   >

Did not the Government not stop funding CDA about five years ago?


----------



## Edward Campbell (21 Aug 2008)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> ...
> Did not the Government not stop funding CDA about five years ago?



No. I think DND gives CDA about $500,000.00/year. There were changes made to the funding arrangements, I believe, about ten or fifteen years ago to make it less direct and obvious (through the CDAI?), but it's still there.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (21 Aug 2008)

Much as I *think* Mr. Staples means well, he just can't wrap his head around the fact that his philosophy would have caused us too stay home until 1947 and then sent over 100 Blue Helmets to protect the last 8 Jews left alive in Holland and living in a ghetto free housing supplied by the great leader to show that he does want to cooperate with North America.....


----------



## Fishbone Jones (21 Aug 2008)

Methinks Mr. Granatstein has struck a nerve and gotten a little too close to the fact that 'the emperor has no clothes' and done so in a language and forum that even the great unwashed can decipher and understand. I hope he and others maintain the pressure until the dike breaks.

To his naysayers, complaining he's not playing fair, in a game with no rules - 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			






_Edit for spelling_


----------



## 2 Cdo (21 Aug 2008)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I do, but he upsets too easily.   >
> 
> Did not the Government not stop funding CDA about five years ago?



I was thinking the same thing George!  :-X


----------



## Slim (2 Oct 2008)

> It may be frustrating for the military dinosaurs, but Canadians will not give up the idea of Canada as a peacekeeper.



Nothing more than the focal point for a small, vocal group of 60's throwbacks, who can't comes to terms with the modern world situation.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (25 Feb 2009)

This could get interesting since a lot of us equate the CBC as being almost part of the Liberal party.


Stumbling CBC seeks federal help
 http://www.thestar.com/Entertainment/Television/article/592706
Feb 25, 2009 04:30 AM 

Greg Quill 
ENTERTAINMENT COLUMNIST

Faced with a $65 million advertising shortfall, the CBC is reaching out to Ottawa for bridge financing, an unprecedented request of a Conservative government that has historically had a cool relationship with the public broadcaster.

"The revenues fell off a cliff. ... I have not seen a slide that precipitous and that deep in my entire life," Richard Stursberg, executive vice-president for English services, told employees yesterday.
"We have not been able to bail the boat as quickly as the water is coming in over the gunwales."

The public broadcaster says it has used surpluses from other divisions and money in reserve to narrow the budget shortfall to $12 million during the current fiscal year, which ends March 31, but ad revenues are forecast to continue to plummet in the coming year.
Stursberg, who confirmed the move at the monthly town hall meeting yesterday, conceded he did not know what type of reception he would receive from the Conservatives, who, while in opposition, were often overtly hostile to the CBC.

"We don't know how receptive the government will be to the request," he said.
A spokesperson for Heritage Minister James Moore said he was already in discussions with the CBC and indicated the door was open to help the corporation.

"In these difficult economic times all broadcasters, including the CBC, are facing challenges, and he is open to working with everyone in a way that will serve all Canadians," Deirdre McCracken told the Star.
Stursberg did not specify the amount of the bridge loan the CBC is seeking from the government or from a private bank. 

"The money ... is not a handout. ... It would be paid back," he said.
Advertising revenues in the corporation's English-language TV operations went into decline last summer. 
Canada's private TV networks, CTV and Canwest Global, are also in crisis because of falling ad revenues, exacerbated by the recession.

Just how much the CBC needs to survive is a matter of conjecture.
"We've been in discussions with the federal government about (the bridge financing option) for the past month," said Jeff Keay, the broadcaster's head of media relations. 
"Senior management is focused on managing (the shortfall) without putting programs, services or jobs at risk."

Management is working on a strategic plan to present to its board of directors before the end of March, he said.
But the corporation may be in deeper trouble than Stursberg is admitting, said Ian Morrison, spokesperson for Friends of Canadian Broadcasting, a broadcast industry watchdog group.

"We believe that the shortfall is $100 million or more, attributable to the decision last year to purchase several expensive U.S. TV properties, including Jeopardy, Wheel Of Fortune and The Martha Stewart Show, on airtight, multi-year contracts," he said.

Even though the programs have won substantial audiences, the anticipated income has not materialized because of the media-wide decline in advertising revenue, coupled with the recession, Morrison said.
"It's a perfect storm, the beginning of a death spiral.
"A $45 million shortfall in the summer has grown to $100 million or $125 million," he said.

"To get out of that hole, CBC will have to make massive layoffs, as many as 600 or 700 of the most senior, costly employees, forcing the national broadcaster to be more centralized in Toronto and Montreal, and weakening its functions, scope and appeal."

With files from Bruce Campion-Smith


----------



## GAP (25 Feb 2009)

> To get out of that hole, CBC will have to make massive layoffs, as many as 600 or 700 of the most senior, costly employees, forcing the national broadcaster to be more centralized in Toronto and Montreal, and weakening its functions, scope and appeal."



Awhhhh, gee..........bye, bye...


----------



## Brad Sallows (25 Feb 2009)

What is wrong with getting their "bridge financing" (ie. a loan) from a bank?


----------



## Rifleman62 (25 Feb 2009)

1. Awhhhh, gee..........bye, bye...
2. " ......weakening its functions, scope and appeal."- What appeal?
3.  "attributable to the decision last year to purchase several expensive_* U.S. TV properties*_, including Jeopardy, Wheel Of Fortune and The Martha Stewart Show, on airtight, multi-year contracts," - What function?
4. "to be more centralized in Toronto and Montreal' - Is that even possible?
5. Sell the CBC.
6. Sell the CBC.


----------



## Slim (25 Feb 2009)

I can't say that I would be overtly sad t see the CBC go the way of the Dodo...

They've been a Liberal institution for some time and their slant often paints the military in a harsh and undeserved light...Rather than speaking the truth they would rather say nothing than something good.

maybe this is a sign that their particular brand of reporting is no longer welcome with the Canadian public...?

Either way...no loss.

My 2 bits


----------



## 2 Cdo (25 Feb 2009)

I would love to be a fly on the wall when the head of the CBC crawls in, hat in hand, to beg for more money!

Maybe it's time to trim the bloated, bureaucrat pay checks, get off the public teat and try to actually become competitive.


----------



## Journeyman (25 Feb 2009)

> CBC will have to make massive layoffs, as many as *600 or 700 of the most senior, costly employees,*


What are the odds that government money will therefore go to 'golden handshakes' to these "senior, costly employees" (if not redecorating the CEO's office, of course)


----------



## Danjanou (25 Feb 2009)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> What are the odds that government money will therefore go to 'golden handshakes' to these "senior, costly employees" (if not redecorating the CEO's office, of course)



Probably pretty good odds. If this does happen and they end up in my office I'll let you know (all income and assets need to be delcared as part of our intake/ligibility screening process).  8)


----------



## kratz (25 Feb 2009)

It sounds like Ottawa is not going to go along with this request based on Mr Flaherty's response today:

The Canadian Press



> Flaherty says CBC already receives 'substantial financing' from Ottawa
> 2 hours ago
> 
> TORONTO — The CBC already receives "substantial financing" from federal coffers, Finance Minister Jim Flaherty said Wednesday as the public broadcaster sought help from Ottawa to stave off cuts to staff and programming.
> ...


----------



## Rifleman62 (25 Feb 2009)

_"The dire outlook comes after the corporation took the unusual step of buying broadcast rights to U.S. shows including "Jeopardy" and "Wheel of Fortune" last year, a move heavily criticized by the broadcast industry watchdog group Friends of Canadian Broadcasting.

Keay said the investments were made to draw more viewers to the CBC and its Canadian programming. And while he says the game shows have delivered viewers......."_

_*And the answer is: The decision did not draw more viewers to the CBC and its Canadian programming*._

*Top Programs – Total Canada (English)* February 9 - 15, 2009
Based on preliminary program schedules and audience data, Demographic: All Persons.

Read in 7 columns:

Rank  Program  Broadcast Outlet  Weekday  Start  End  Total 2+AMA(000

1 GREY'S ANATOMY CTV Total ...T... 21:00 22:00 2300
2 AMERICAN IDOL 8 AP CTV Total .T..... 20:00 21:01 2286
3 AMERICAN IDOL 8 AR CTV Total ..W.... 20:00 22:00 2249
4 SURVIVOR:TOCANTINS Global Total ...T... 20:00 21:00 2008
5 AMAZING RACE 14 CTV Total ......S 20:00 21:00 1959
6 C.S.I. CTV Total ...T... 20:00 21:00 1955
7 C.S.I. NEW YORK CTV Total ..W.... 22:00 23:00 1902
8 C.S.I. MIAMI CTV Total M...... 22:00 23:00 1710
9 NCIS Global Total .T..... 20:00 21:00 1679
10 DESPERATE HOUSEWIVES CTV Total ......S 21:00 22:01 1672
11 ER CTV Total ...T... 22:00 23:00 1526
12 TWO AND A HALF MEN CTV Total M...... 21:00 21:31 1456
13 HOUSE Global Total M...... 20:00 21:00 1433
14 CTV EVENING NEWS CTV Total MTWTF.. 18:00 19:00 1382
15 FLASHPOINT CTV Total ....F.. 21:00 22:00 1292
16 GHOST WHISPERER CTV Total ....F.. 20:00 21:00 1185
17 THE MENTALIST CTV Total ......S 22:01 23:00 1155
18 FRINGE CTV Total .T..... 21:01 22:00 1086
19 24 Global Total M...... 21:00 22:00 1066
*20 JEOPARDY CBC Total MTWTF.. 19:30 20:00 1022*
21 CTV EVENING NEWS WKD CTV Total .....SS 18:00 19:00 1005
*22 H.N.I.C. GAME #1 CBC Total .....S. 19:02 22:04 988*
23 BIG BANG THEORY CTV Total M...... 21:31 22:00 977
24 CTV NATIONAL NEWS CTV Total MTWTFSS 23:00 23:30 964
25 PRIVATE PRACTICE 'A' Total ...T... 22:02 23:00 940
26 GLOBAL NATIONAL Global Total MTWTF.. 17:30 18:00 900
27 YOUNG & THE RESTLESS Global Total MTWTF.. 16:30 17:30 895
28 SIMPSONS Global Total ......S 20:00 20:30 892
29 CRIMETIME SATURDAYS CTV Total .....S. 21:00 22:00 850
30 FAMILY GUY Global Total ......S 21:00 21:30 848

© 2009 BBM Nielsen
Understanding this report …
This chart shows the Top 30 TV programs for all national networks and Canadian English specialty networks for the week
indicated. Programs are ranked based on their AMA(000). AMA(000) is the average minute audience in thousands. The chartalso indicates the broadcast outlet on which the program aired and the program’s start and end time (shown in Eastern Time).


----------



## a_majoor (25 Feb 2009)

The Government takes the right path:

http://www.nationalpost.com/rss/story.html?id=1328491



> *No emergency loan for CBC: Tories*
> 
> Andrew Mayeda, Canwest News Service  Published: Wednesday, February 25, 2009
> 
> ...


----------



## zipperhead_cop (26 Feb 2009)

We've wasted well over a billion dollars on those clowns?  For what?!


----------



## PMedMoe (26 Feb 2009)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> What are the odds that government money will therefore go to 'golden handshakes' to these "senior, costly employees"


----------



## Neill McKay (26 Feb 2009)

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> We've wasted well over a billion dollars on those clowns?  For what?!



Among other things, for radio programming that does not insult the intelligence of its listeners.

CBC critics often forget that there's much more to the CBC than English television.


----------



## BradCon (26 Feb 2009)

At the risk of being flamed here,  I need to ask what good could come from running the CB into the ground?  The CBC unifies our country more than any other single force out there, and surely a few million dollars is not going to be a burden on any individual.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (26 Feb 2009)

N. McKay said:
			
		

> Among other things, for radio programming that does not insult the intelligence of its listeners.



Hmm, except for "Metro Morning" and the "World Report" most of CBC Radio programming is very sad....IMO, of course.

However, if it came down to a choice of CBC TV or CBC Radio then I pick radio.


----------



## Journeyman (26 Feb 2009)

BradCon said:
			
		

> The CBC unifies our country more than any other single force out there


No, a Canada-wide dislike of Toronto unifies us.


----------



## BradCon (26 Feb 2009)

As a man who doesn't own a TV I can only comment on CBC Radio.  I have been a dedicated listener in 2 provinces and one territory and I can say with confidence that most of the CBC' biased reporting comes from it's local shows.  On a national level it remain objective, regardless of the days Government.

About CBC TV,

 I'm not a consumer of TV because advertising is insulting to the viewer certainly.  However I'd much prefer a broadcaster that was not making a massive profit by importing American cultural ideals, and would sooner attack the bias and therefore the credibility of  fox, cnn or even ctv than attack a cultural staple such as the CBC




AS for Toronto...flame on! :flame:


----------



## Brad Sallows (26 Feb 2009)

The CBC isn't being run into the ground.  The CBC is experiencing exactly what every other broadcaster in Canada and the US is experiencing: shortfalls in advertising revenues.  It's a completely level playing field.

I frankly doubt that the CBC does more to unify the country than a solid basic elementary school education.

>and surely a few million dollars is not going to be a burden on any individual.

A few million here, a few million there...surely at some point we decide the sum is "real money"?

Consider the big picture.  Here are some of the things that might already have happened to anyone:
- loss of 20-30% of investment asset value
- loss of 5-10% of value of owned real estate (ie. home)
- projected contraction in housing prices of up to 20% (I can't recall if this is from current levels, or from recent peaks)

Here are some things that people not working in the public or quasi-public sectors are likely to experience:
- freeze in raises (wage/salary/benefits)
- cuts to pay, benefits, or incentive compensation
- layoff of peers
- layoff of self (probably without grieving rooms, counsellors, or chauffeur service home on the Black Day)

I am aware that some of those have been or will be experienced among public or quasi-public employees, but at this point is it still reasonable to generalize that most of those employees are going to keep their jobs and benefits, some are in negotiations for contracts which - yet again - will yield net compensation increases in excess of cost of living increases (and how long is that sustainable?), and that pension shortfalls will be made good out of the public purse.

A person who:
- has no defined benefit pension, and has experienced a 20-30% investment writedown
- has experienced or will experience a 5-20% loss of home equity
- has no likelihood of a publicly-funded bailout of either the aforementioned
- will certainly not receive a raise, and may already have received various compensation cuts
- has seen 5% or 10% of his peers laid off
- has some reasonable apprehension of being laid off
has already "paid his share", and is unlikely to look favourably on schemes to cushion others at his (taxpaying) expense.  If this recession is as bad as its alarmist doomcryers claim, it is very, very, very important that the "protected" sectors become "unprotected" and share the pain.  No function, repeat none, is important enough to be exempt.


----------



## BradCon (26 Feb 2009)

As the only national public radio broadcaster in our country, the CBC absolutely is a unifying force in our country.  Basic elementary education varies from city to city let alone coast to coast.  The CBC also works to bring to Canada solid journalism from around the world, it gives more attention to Canadians producing  Canadian content than any other national entity save the canadian Gov't.

The greater good will be served by providing support for this staple of Canadian heritage certainly. 
The picture you cut and paste Mr. Sallows is bleak certainly, but how would you divide the money between so many individuals?  Give them a few bucks each?  Surely the better solution is to provide for them by supporting a fundamental part of the Canadian identity.


----------



## The Bread Guy (26 Feb 2009)

BradCon said:
			
		

> .... I can say with confidence that most of the CBC' biased reporting comes from it's local shows.  On a national level it remain objective, regardless of the days Government ....


And I can say with equal or more confidence that there are more than a few reading/posting here who, based on direct experience dealing with _national-level_ media, CBC included, would vigorously disagree.  I'll leave it at that....

That said, it would be a shame losing a national broadcaster entirely



			
				BradCon said:
			
		

> how would you divide the money between so many individuals?  Give them a few bucks each?


When you consider the dollars/person, it never IS much.  However, how much of what kind of infrastructure (schools, water plants, etc.) could you build with the $62 million being talked about as the proposed cut?  CBC and other media present a lot of stories about what's not being built or fixed - here's one way to get some of those funds.

Would I like to see CBC turn out the lights?  No.  Could things be run more tightly?  As with any larger organization, I'm guessing yes.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (26 Feb 2009)

The CBC radio station in Winnipeg is almost useless- their on air personalities are annoying at best.  That said, CBC Vancouver is a class act and many of the National level shows (Quirks and Quarks, The House and Cross Country Checkup with Rex Murphy) are actually quite good.


----------



## BradCon (26 Feb 2009)

Regarding
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090226.wcbc0226/BNStory/Front/home

Of course leave it to the conservative Gov't to put the CBC in a position where will need to rely on American programming to survive.

No wonder  if any bias does exist, it is against the Conservatives but that's  like the rest of Canada.


----------



## aesop081 (26 Feb 2009)

BradCon said:
			
		

> Regarding
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090226.wcbc0226/BNStory/Front/home
> 
> Of course leave it to the conservative Gov't to put the CBC in a position where will need to rely on American programming to survive.
> ...



At least your own bias is obvious.


----------



## Brad Sallows (26 Feb 2009)

What was first claimed was: "The CBC unifies our country more than any other single force out there".  Bullsh!t.  The occasional myth-sustaining or revisionist - depending on your view - CBC documentary or drama is not the wellspring of Canadian nationalism.  Stronger forces and factors of Canadian unity predate the CBC.  The CBC was typically one of one or two channels available on local airwaves in some areas when/where I grew up, and I assure you it in no way was even a pale competitor to the basic information and narrative imparted in schools.

Other broadcasting companies bring Canada solid journalism; and, to the extent that Canadian content matters: you pursue your happiness, and I'll pursue mine.  "Canadian content" is not a proofing material against mediocrity, and whyever should anyone be forced to pay for mediocrity instead of something they wish to consume?

>Give them a few bucks each?

Yes.

>Surely the better solution is to provide for them by supporting a fundamental part of the Canadian identity.

At the end of the day, "Canadian identity" is not a hot meal on a plate or a roof overhead.  For the majority of us who are fortunate enough to be well above those circumstances, what the f#ck is this magical "Canadian identity" thing you think we should be forced to buy, even if we could get a tangible grip on it and prove that a dollar for the CBC was really a dollar for "Canadian identity" and not a dollar for "subsidized film/radio/TV jobs"?  If a country's national identity is in danger of disappearing due to a slight reduction in the work force of a broadcasting corporation, it has no national identity to speak of that's worth preserving: cut the funding entirely.

If the best supporters of the CBC can do is muster the same old weightless appeal to "Canadian identity", there are no arguments of any weight.


----------



## Brad Sallows (26 Feb 2009)

>Of course leave it to the conservative Gov't to put the CBC in a position where will need to rely on American programming to survive.

And apparently neither that, nor a moment's reflection, prompted you to ask the obvious question: with even the most handsomely funded CBC still having to compete with hundreds of affordably accessible channels of TV and radio programming and a world's worth of entertainment readily (often freely, to the unscrupulous and short-sighted) available over the internet for years, why hasn't "Canadian identity" been extinguished?

Obvious answer: "Canadian identity" doesn't need the CBC to survive.  The CBC is just another broadcasting corporation.  Treat it like one.


----------



## BradCon (26 Feb 2009)

You're using pathos, for an argument my friend....logos works much better.

That CBC is the ONLY national public broadcaster, ergo it is the most important. It may be a lofty claim I made, but the yet to be named force which rivals the CBC's binding powers is still floating in the ether.

There is no Canadian rival. NCIS or the Simpsons bring us together so we can dismantle the fabric of Canadian identity not add to it.  A Unique Canadian identity is important to me, and that the CBC offers something that is not pushing the American ideal is important to Canada


----------



## Fishbone Jones (27 Feb 2009)

BradCon said:
			
		

> You're using pathos, for an argument my friend....logos works much better.
> 
> That CBC is the ONLY national public broadcaster, ergo it is the most important. It may be a lofty claim I made, but the yet to be named force which rivals the CBC's binding powers is still floating in the ether.
> 
> There is no Canadian rival. NCIS or the Simpsons bring us together so we can dismantle the fabric of Canadian identity not add to it.  A Unique Canadian identity is important to me, and that the CBC offers something that is not pushing the American ideal is important to Canada



Take away HNIC and the CBC will collapse like a house of cards. They provide nothing else that's not supplied better by public or private broadcasters. CBC is a welfare client sucking the hind tit of the Canadian public. Keep a generic world radio for outreach and close the doors on the rest. 

CBC is the Octomom of the broadcast world.


----------



## Occam (27 Feb 2009)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Take away HNIC and the CBC will collapse like a house of cards. They provide nothing else that's not supplied better by public or private broadcasters.



Don't ever underestimate the silent hordes of closet Coronation Street viewers, like yours truly...   8)


----------



## Journeyman (27 Feb 2009)

Scandalous.

I'm just glad that Bruno Gerussi isn't alive to hear this sort of talk.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (27 Feb 2009)

Occam said:
			
		

> Don't ever underestimate the silent hordes of closet Coronation Street viewers, like yours truly...   8)



I'm with ya there, but figure I could find it on the computer if I had to.


----------



## Neill McKay (27 Feb 2009)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Take away HNIC and the CBC will collapse like a house of cards. They provide nothing else that's not supplied better by public or private broadcasters.



Then I would challenge you to take a week's worth of Radio 1 programming and show me where to find the same kind of programming on other broadcasters in Canada.  Who else is doing anything even close to Ideas or the Sunday Edition, as a couple of examples?  Not just in the Toronto or Vancouver markets, mind you -- but in virtually every corner of the country.


----------



## vonGarvin (27 Feb 2009)

CBC Radio and CBC Television are different beings.  "Cross country Checkup", "The world at six" "As it happens", etc are all good examples of a national radio broadcaster this fills a niche that noone else can (not even Ryan Seacrest!)  CBC Television is but one of three "networks" that are (a) Canadian and (b) National.  CTV and Global ("CanWest Global, or whatever its called) are the other two.  Now, CBC TV does offer commercial free television for children in the mornings, which is great, but other than that and HNIC, I cannot think of a popular CBC show.  Yes, the news shows "...the Canadian perspective", whatever that means, but for me Floyd Lloyd Robertson and the other fine folks at CTV, and to a lesser extent the crew at Global, are much better and less obviously biased.


----------



## Brad Sallows (27 Feb 2009)

>You're using pathos, for an argument my friend....logos works much better.

You're the one appealing to "Canadian identity", not me.  And I see you're still fixated on the idea that only a broadcasting agency can be the most important "binding" force of national unity.

>A Unique Canadian identity is important to me

Exactly.  It's important to you.  Then you should support it.  You should buy the products of those agencies which you believe promote it.  But you should not assume that your assessment of the importance of those agencies is necessarily correct, or that anyone who doesn't share your aesthetic preferences should have to help you pay for them regardless.


----------



## a_majoor (27 Feb 2009)

Brad is quite correct. If the CBC has something unique to offer and *you* are willing to pay for that "unique" thing, then pull out your wallet.

If there is a solution that makes sense then CBC should become one or more specialty channels on PPV TV and Sirius Radio, and work to provide programming to their subscriber base. Based on the veiwership numbers, CBC PPV and CBC Sirius will be increadibly lean and mean machines....


----------



## Rifleman62 (27 Feb 2009)

SeaKingTacco, agree with tour assessment of CBC Radio Winnipeg/Vancouver. World Report, Quirks and Quarks, The House and Cross Country Checkup with Rex Murphy are good programs although I personally find The House bias somewhat. I used to listen to classical music on CBC FM. CBC also broadcasts after midnight, European and Australian national news/info shows e.g. Radio Prague, Australian Broadcasting Corporation.  The above represents few hours 24/7. 

The BBM clearly indicates that the CBC has an exceptionally small number of listeners/watchers in every market in Canada, and it is further eroding.  Changes to radio programming have even alienated The Friends of CBC.

I do not know if it is still the case, but when there was an event to be covered, CBC sent crews from: local TV, the National TV, Newsworld TV, CBC Radio local and national, plus their compatriots from all the French CBC Radio and TV. The local private TV and radio stations and newspapers in Winnipeg complained that all the CBC employees outnumbered them in their entirety. I have attended at events and seen this.

Regarding http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090226.wcbc0226/BNStory/Front/home

“Of course leave it to the conservative Gov't to put the CBC in a position where will need to rely on American programming to survive.” This comment and the G & M article should have been posted in Radio Chatter, Whats the dumbest thing you heard said today?

To me, this is just subliminal anti-Americanism. Do not forget that 83% of our economy is exported to the US. If you are so Canadian content, then stop e.g. eating US imports during the winter.

The CBC cannot survive on Canadian content alone. The CBC should not be in the position to out bid Canadian private broadcasters for any kind of programming, especially US programming, with taxpayers dollars.

Sell the CBC TV. Keep CBC Radio, as one network, broadcasting on both AM and FM, in both languages (as well as special languages in Northern Canada). The AM/FM would be available to everyone in Canada and by shortwave to the world.


----------



## armyvern (27 Feb 2009)

Come on people, you all know damn well that the CBC isn't biased.


----------



## Journeyman (27 Feb 2009)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Come on people, you all know damn well that the CBC isn't biased.



 :rofl:
Well....._somebody's_ meds just kicked in   ;D


----------



## zipperhead_cop (27 Feb 2009)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Come on people, you all know damn well that the CBC isn't biased.



Ya!!  And look at how much good the Liberals have done in Canada in the last 30 years!  And Kyoto is the only way we can save Mother Earth!!  And Al Gore should be the World President! 

eace: Man, this is some good stuff!!


----------



## BradCon (27 Feb 2009)

So I forgot to add one thing,  to my prior statements,  so please for all my preceding comments, preface or conclude them with IMHO  

thanks :cheers:


----------



## zipperhead_cop (27 Feb 2009)

No worries, it was implied. If anyone else had your opinions, the CBC wouldn't be going down the tubes.  
 ;D


----------



## Neill McKay (27 Feb 2009)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> The BBM clearly indicates that the CBC has an exceptionally small number of listeners/watchers in every market in Canada, and it is further eroding.



Where did you see that?


----------



## Rifleman62 (27 Feb 2009)

See post http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/18397.195.html for an example. Google BBM Canada. Fool around with the website to see some reports. You have to be a member to get their reports but you can see some of them.
Google BBM Canada and look at "News" for reports released to the media.


----------



## BradCon (27 Feb 2009)

"To me, this is just subliminal anti-Americanism. Do not forget that 83% of our economy is exported to the US. If you are so Canadian content, then stop e.g. eating US imports during the winter."

I can understand that from a strategic point of view it is important to remain on good terms with the Americans, and hey I even like some of them.  I think that we need to celebrate diversity though and embrace what is uniquely Canadian, and continue to create a unique Canadian culture, which includes the CBC.


----------



## Brad Sallows (27 Feb 2009)

>I think that we need to celebrate diversity though and embrace what is uniquely Canadian, and continue to create a unique Canadian culture, which includes the CBC.

I think we ought to watch more Clint Eastwood movies.   You take your $20 of the $65,000,000 and give it to the CBC; I'll take mine and have a soda and popcorn while I watch Clint defend his classic Ford.


----------



## Kat Stevens (27 Feb 2009)

Canadian cultural content movies like Slumdog Millionaire, anyone?


----------



## a_majoor (28 Feb 2009)

BradCon said:
			
		

> I think that we need to celebrate diversity though and embrace what is uniquely Canadian, and continue to create a unique Canadian culture, which includes the CBC.



You can think whatever you like, and I am here to defend that right, but you have no right to demand that "we" pay for your opinions (especially since I don't see you offering to pay for mine  )

Would you like to "celebrate diversity"? Put on a show or event. Maybe you will have to charge admission to cover your costs (and they will not be paying to see you and your show if you don't offer something the *customers* think is of value). This is the problem of the CBC, they (as indicated through their BBM numbers), no one will pay to see them, but since they do not have to cater to their customers (or more correctly their "customers" have become bureaucrats who provide their funding, not the viewers), they have no incentive to improve, and can use tax dollars to outbid private broadcasters for American shows and palatial headquarters.

BTW, how does purchasing American content "celebrate diversity though and embrace what is uniquely Canadian, and continue to create a unique Canadian culture?"


----------



## Rifleman62 (28 Feb 2009)

Although I believe Army.ca is not unique as other countries have similiar enities, you can "celebrate diversity though and embrace what is uniquely Canadian, and continue to create a unique Canadian culture" here. Subscribe to Army.ca   In this small way you WILL contribute to Canadian culture.


----------



## observor 69 (2 Mar 2009)

I like the CBC radio Metro Morning in Toronto with Andy Barrie. It is one of the top rated morning radio shows.
I like Being Erica on CBC TV and the At Issue panel on the National.
I think in the Martimes the CBC is the best network.

All IMHO just like most of the comments made on this thread.

As per money, most of the networks, particularly Canwest,  are under financial strain due to the present state of the economy and the internet.


----------



## Rifleman62 (7 Mar 2009)

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/03/07/national-post-editorial-board-judging-harper-by-a-different-standard.aspx

National Post editorial board: *Judging Harper by a different standard*
Posted: March 07, 2009, 8:13 AM by NP Editor 
Editorial, Full Comment Canadian politics

The double standard by which Ottawa’s Conservative government is judged has been put in unusually high relief by several recent examples of selective criticism. Compare, for example, the reactions to Ottawa’s early release of its deficit figures, and a similar announcement by Ontario’s Liberals.

When Prime Minister Stephen Harper had a federal official slip reporters the deficit figures several days before Finance Minister Jim Flaherty’s  budget, he was raked over the coals by politicians and pundits alike. The CBC called it “an extraordinary step” given that budget secrecy is “legendary.” Liberal finance critic John McCallum said it was “grossly irresponsible.” An Ottawa newspaper stated categorically that it “undermined the credibility of its budget” and likely derived from “the government’s attempt to spin or manipulate public opinion.” A Montreal columnist said letting the figure out before markets closed was “stupid.”

Most famously, Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff derided it as “irresponsible and costly to our economy.” 

“*I * asked Mr. Harper not to play games like that. *I told him*, ‘Put the facts and figures on the table. Don’t let them slip out at his convenience.’ But the guy just can’t help himself. He thinks it is all some kind of political game,” complained Mr. Ignatieff.

Now consider the silence that greeted Ontario Finance Minister Dwight Duncan’s announcement this week of an $18-billion shortfall, four weeks before a budget is due. As with Ottawa, the number was revealed before markets closed: at a lunchtime speech stocked with reporters, in fact. 

Nothing from Mr. Ignatieff. Zero from Mr. McCallum. No homilies from the CBC or Ottawa press.

It’s the just the latest example of the apparent eagerness to find fault with Mr. Harper for actions acceptable in more liberal politicians. The Prime Minister was similarly denounced when he suggested during the fall election that the decline in stock prices had produced “some great buying opportunities.” Jack Layton declared he couldn’t believe his ears. Stéphane Dion said it was evidence the Prime Minister was “insensitive and out of touch.” 

When President Barack Obama made a similar statement this week, it went unremarked upon.

Mr. Obama has similarly adopted an approach to press conferences that reflects a model pioneered by Mr. Harper, but is much tougher. Both require a list of reporters seeking to ask questions. Canadian journalists decide amongst themselves who gets on the list and what questions to ask; in the U.S. the White House controls both. Mr. Harper was treated to months of hostile press when he introduced his system — some reporters still boycott The List. Mr. Obama has faced some grumbling at home, but nothing like the tantrums Mr. Harper endured. As is common with U.S. politicians, the President does not flinch from mentioning God; Mr. Harper was ridiculed when he began doing so.

Perhaps there’s a reason for this other than the age-old complaint about the press being infested with liberals. Mr. Obama is still relatively new on the scene, has high approval ratings and is enjoying a prolonged honeymoon, while Mr. Harper is not new, was never more than moderately popular and doesn’t like the press any more than they like him. But that doesn’t explain the free ride for Mr. McGuinty, who’s been around longer than the Prime Minister and recently advised reporters to stay at least five feet away when asking questions.

Most likely it’s the hothouse atmosphere in Ottawa. Parliamentary reporters spend their lives locked in a cold climate with the same 300-or-so MPs, of which they pay attention to only a handful. Same old arguments, same old posturing, day in and day out. They should get out more. See the country. Breath the air. Meet someone who isn’t the Prime Minister, or beholden to him.

It might improve their attitude.

National Post


----------



## Greymatters (7 Mar 2009)

Grab a shovel - its only the most recent example of how politicians (in all parties) have forgotten the menaing of 'stewardship'.  Its all about making the opposition look as bad as possible regardless of the effects on the general populaton...


----------



## BradCon (7 Mar 2009)

Because I am the sort of person who thinks about that which he has said and is unafraid to admit that he has been wrong,  I'd like to change my prior assertion that  CBC was unbiased, to one that is more mature and less far fetched.  

My reanalysis of the situation concludes that I in fact do not think that the CBC is without  bias, rather the CBC has a bias that I align myself with more than other media agencies..  IMO CBC slants the news is such away that it persuade it's listeners to hold political belief that is reflective of a "good people".  The CBC challenges our nation to be empathetic and compassionate towards it's own citizenry and it is wary of thought or culture that would undermine those qualities.

By not promoting the ideals of mass consumption, environmental irresponsibility, zealous christian belief, or selfishness the CBC provides Canadians and International fans with the flavour of maple syrup, fresh air and clean water. It also tries to protect us from drowning in tailings ponds, suffocating from mass emissions, and becoming obese fast food junkies.

So Yes the CBC has a bias of which they are always taking suggestions from their audience on how to improve and; I don't always agree with everything the CBC says, I conclude that the CBC bias is one that is good for Canada


----------



## Rifleman62 (7 Mar 2009)

Ugh!


----------



## Fishbone Jones (7 Mar 2009)

BradCon said:
			
		

> Because I am the sort of person who thinks about that which he has said and is unafraid to admit that he has been wrong,  I'd like to change my prior assertion that  CBC was unbiased, to one that is more mature and less far fetched.
> 
> My reanalysis of the situation concludes that I in fact do not think that the CBC is without  bias, rather the CBC has a bias that I align myself with more than other media agencies..  IMO CBC slants the news is such away that it persuade it's listeners to hold political belief that is reflective of a "good people".  The CBC challenges our nation to be empathetic and compassionate towards it's own citizenry and it is wary of thought or culture that would undermine those qualities.
> 
> ...




Sorry, I don't think we're buying whatever it is your smoking.


----------



## Kirkhill (7 Mar 2009)

I DO know that I have to have a couple more Jaegermeisters to catch up to that poor bugger.

Enjoy yourself Brad ;D


----------



## BradCon (7 Mar 2009)

A little too heartfelt for you hardened men?

 :-[

The simple explanation is
Thats my "me at home with my daughter face."  :king:


----------



## a_majoor (7 Mar 2009)

BravoCharlie said:
			
		

> IMO CBC slants the news is such away that it persuade it's listeners to hold political belief that is reflective of a "good people".



So tell me how holding politicians to entirely different standards for saying and doing *exactly* the same things is reflective of a "good people"?

I would say misinforming people and using bias to judge people by different standards is the mark of a very capricious and arbitrary group of "bad people".


----------



## BradCon (7 Mar 2009)

IS there a statement more benign than 
The CBC calling something“an extraordinary step” given that budget secrecy is “legendary.” 

It's merely  stating a fact of magnitude.  As to which end of the spectrum this statement falls, it is left to the readers to form their opinion.

What you're slamming Thucy is the National Post, which does have a bias that IS harmful to Canada. I agree


----------



## Kirkhill (8 Mar 2009)

BC - 

If it is left, it is not right.  If it is not right, it is sinister.   

The CBC is a sinister organisation.  QED.


----------



## a_majoor (8 Mar 2009)

The key difference is I can choose to buy or subscribe to the NP, Atlantic Monthly, The Economist, National Review or anything else I choose. If I decide they do not represent my interests or report the facts, I can always choose to stop reading and supporting them.

CBC, by virtue of having the power of the State to take our tax dollars, can choose to slant their reporting with no recourse for us. This is known as propaganda. The political rent seekers who run the CBC will do everything in their power to prevent a majority Conservative government, in order to continue feeding at the trough. (The recent decision of the government to rebuff the CBC's request for an additional funding on the grounds other broadcasters without access to taxpayer monies are also suffering reduced revenues is a good sign that biased reporting will not be tolerated. If there was a CPC majority this step could have been taken a long time ago).


----------



## BradCon (8 Mar 2009)

What too is being over looked is that even an East  Vancouver lefty like myself can live with the CBC's centrist position without feeling robbed and cheated.  However, those who are equidistant from the CBC but to the right of the spectrum  tend to get their undies bunched up about the lack of "on board" reporting that the CBC offers.

I  and my ilk can live and be happy with a CBC, that does not represent our interests wholly and even challenges our beliefs.  We know it  would do harm to dismantle the CBC and if the right had it's way the CBC would be replaced with a similar but right leaning broadcaster. 

The centrist approach to information dissemination that the CBC employs is the correct one for this country.


----------



## Kirkhill (8 Mar 2009)

BravoCharlie said:
			
		

> and if the right had it's way the CBC would be replaced with a similar but right leaning broadcaster.



No mate. That's where you are wrong. This rightist doesn't want any government broadcaster.  Punkt. Period. Full Stop.

I don't want to be told what to think or, in the ineffable phrase of his baldness "What are we to think?"

Some years ago, and not too many, I recall somebody bemoaning the fact that in the good old days, when Walter Kronkite was telling the tale, there was a common story that everybody believed.  Back in those halcyon days "everybody", all 50% of Americans, believed that they should get out of Vietnam.

Walter, Peter, the Ayatollah, Stalin.....they were not the first people to seek to find The One, The Only, The Singular, The Unique Truth in the hope that that singularity would be so persuasive as to convince the rest of humanity of the appropriateness of a course and thus avert discord.

However, it has been my observation that the more people insist on a singular truth, the more likely that the opposing argument becomes equally entrenched.  It becomes like too magnets facing North Pole to North Pole.  The more they are forced together the stronger the repellent forces and the more unstable the situation becomes.


Thucydides has been pointing out some other examples of similar thinking with respect to the Obama administrations positions on philanthropy and on the economy generally.  They do not celebrate diversity.  They seek to impose uniformity, dogma, authority.  

Democracy is about free individuals making free choices, and everybody else tolerating their right to make wrong decisions, in so far as their decisions do not actually cause harm to anyone other than themselves.


----------



## BradCon (8 Mar 2009)

I am confused by this apparent hypocrisy, and I look forward to your illumination, because as we know I am still a civvie, and I do want to have the military insiders perspective on things.

As I understand it, you do not want to be told how to think and by extension behave by the government of the day, right or left.  My confusion herein lies that you are absolutely under the control of the days government by serving as a member of the Forces.  I understand that CF is a self governed entity, however it's mandate is handed down to you, and I hope one day soon I.  PLease offer some insight as to how these two apparent opposite ideal can exist in one person?

Using your analogy of the magnets, which I can agree with to a point, and my understanding of your perspective (which is in no way concrete) you are at risk of being ripped apart by your own paradox.
And you and I would not be able to agree on a point, for the closer we came to understanding, the greater the resistance we would encounter.  I disagree.  While singular truth is  unattainable given the limitation of the human mind, we can still make compromise that sees us both at ease with the outcome.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (8 Mar 2009)

BravoCharlie said:
			
		

> My confusion herein lies that you are absolutely under the control of the days government by serving as a member of the Forces.


Umm, no.
Your confusion must stem from the thinking that once you sign up you slide into a Borg-like trance.......


----------



## DONT_PANIC (8 Mar 2009)

BravoCharlie said:
			
		

> .
> 
> As I understand it, you do not want to be told how to think and by extension behave by the government of the day, right or left.  My confusion herein lies that you are absolutely under the control of the days government by serving as a member of the Forces.  I understand that CF is a self governed entity, however it's mandate is handed down to you, and I hope one day soon I.  PLease offer some insight as to how these two apparent opposite ideal can exist in one person?



Simply put, we made a voluntary choice to join the CF.  We were full aware that we would have to accept orders and control of others.  We don't have any choice over funding the CBC.  As Thucydides pointed out, the state funds the CBC by taking money (from taxpayers) through it's monopoly on the legitimate use of force.  Nobody put a gun to our heads and make us enroll.  They do when they fund the CBC.


----------



## GAP (8 Mar 2009)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Umm, no.
> Your confusion must stem from the thinking that once you sign up you slide into a Borg-like trance.......



oh......you mean we don't.......I so wanted one of those viewer thingys that attached to the replaced side of your head, and the flashing LED's are so cool.....


----------



## Greymatters (8 Mar 2009)

BravoCharlie said:
			
		

> As I understand it, you do not want to be told how to think and by extension behave by the government of the day, right or left.  My confusion herein lies that you are absolutely under the control of the days government by serving as a member of the Forces.  I understand that CF is a self governed entity, however it's mandate is handed down to you, and I hope one day soon I.  PLease offer some insight as to how these two apparent opposite ideal can exist in one person?



To address your confusion, consider the following but bear in mind that my opinion on this is mine and not neccesarily representing anyone else:

Service in the military is a constant state of dichotomy, of paradox, of what some might see as 'hypocrisy'.  What many members believe is often directly contradicted by how we behave, not by choice but by how we are expected to serve.  

I believe strongly in the right to free speech, yet was denied it as member of the military, and accepted it because I understood that the military as a whole cannot allow itself to be involved in politics and general opinion. 
I believe strongly in rule of law and a free society, yet lived in a harshly repressive system of rules of obligations.  I endured these conditions not because I was an outcast or misfit but because I understood that those who are handed power must be controlled so that the power is not misused, as seen so often in many other countries worldwide. 
I am distrustful of higher political authority because I saw the faults of the system, but followed the orders of those same political leaders because I think that is the best system currently available.  I dislike the self-serving interests I see in our leadership because the majority of us have given up our personal interests in service to the country, and I expect elected officials to do likewise.
I fire back criticism of our beliefs and standards because we are not meek and do not turn the other cheek, despite everyone wishing we would shut up and do as we are told.  I obeyed orders because with so many aggressive independent and leader-orientated minds all in one organization, I understood that if we did not there would be complete anarchy within the system.  I dislike rigid fixed structures of society, but stick to a rigid fixed system of order and comand because I have seen that the military is often the last bastion of civilization and order in areas of chaos. 
I perform actions similiar to those performed by law enforcement and security services, yet am denied the same level of acceptance and respect as those services.  I distrust many media sources and do not believe their assrtions that they are unbiased because I have seen too many examples of bias and untruth worldwide, yet must read the news for information because there is no other way to get the information I need.


----------



## Good2Golf (8 Mar 2009)

Greymatters said:
			
		

> To address your confusion, consider the following but bear in mind that my opinion on this is mine and not neccesarily representing anyone else:
> 
> Service in the military is a constant state of dichotomy, of paradox, of what some might see as 'hypocrisy'.  What many members believe is often directly contradicted by how we behave, not by choice but by how we are expected to serve.
> 
> ...



GM, that is an excellent summary of at least how I see service in the military as well.  Make that two folks who feel this way.

Cheers
G2G


----------



## Fishbone Jones (8 Mar 2009)

BravoCharlie said:
			
		

> We know it  would do harm to dismantle the CBC and if the right had it's way the CBC would be replaced with a similar but right leaning broadcaster.



You KNOW nothing of the sort. It's simply YOUR opinion, which some may agree with and some consider misguided and untruthful.


----------



## observor 69 (8 Mar 2009)

The CBC receives almost two-thirds of its funding from the Canadian government via a parliamentary appropriation, with the rest of its revenue coming from a variety of other sources.

http://www.tru.ca/news/digests05nov8/publicbroadcastfunding/CBCFundingDetails.htm

That's a democracy for ya!


----------



## Kirkhill (8 Mar 2009)

BravoCharlie said:
			
		

> I am confused by this apparent hypocrisy, and I look forward to your illumination, because as we know I am still a civvie, and I do want to have the military insiders perspective on things.
> 
> As I understand it, you do not want to be told how to think and by extension behave by the government of the day, right or left.  My confusion herein lies that you are absolutely under the control of the days government by serving as a member of the Forces.  I understand that CF is a self governed entity, however it's mandate is handed down to you, and I hope one day soon I.  PLease offer some insight as to how these two apparent opposite ideal can exist in one person?
> 
> ...



Item the first:  I am not currently a serving member.  Anciently I was.

When I was, I accepted the terms of my contract which for a limited period constrained my rights.  This was for reasons well described by Grey Matters and G2G.

I, and they, and all other serving members VOLUNTARILY accepted those terms.  We find, and found, the rationale for those terms sufficiently valid as to be persuasive.

Inside or outside of those terms nobody ever told me what to think.  They certainly told me what to do.  They certainly told me, on occasion, what I could not say.  Off the job, out of uniform, I was as free as any "East Vancouver leftie" to think, do and say what I wished, so long as I did not bring disgrace to my commission or my uniform.

Then, and now, outside of the contract, I crave freedom.  Freedom to think and to act.  Freedom to make my own decisions.....decisions based on all available information, not information screened so as to lead me to a single, ineluctable answer but all available information.  That includes information from sources with which I do not agree.  In consequence, I do occasionally watch/listen to CBC.  But it is a truly boring exercise as the talking points are so ruddy predictable.

I don't oppose the right of CBC to exist.  I don't oppose their right to spout inanities.  I do resent that I am forced to pay for the drivel.  

But, as Baden Guy suggests: it is in the nature of a democracy that at least from time to time the majority will do something that embarrasses/appalls/discomfits me.

Such is this case.


----------



## BradCon (8 Mar 2009)

Brilliant.  

Yes signing away those rights are voluntary, I will accept to those terms when called upon, and internally I may at times crave a voice and remain hungry, I am prepared and eager.  There is a chicken and egg issue that arises from the previous discussion though, and that is does attitude shape behavior or behavior shape attitude.  The latter is more often true, and  compound that with the extreme social pressure that exists within the forces there is going to be a gradual  and for some a dramatic shift in core values over time. But I digress.

Because they are your tax dollars, you're damn right to complain about how they are spent, if you feel it is unjust, or plain wasteful.  But I don't see how you're tax dollars being mismanaged contributes to the political bias of the CBC negatively.  If anything it would encourage the CBC to cozy up to whom ever is making the decisions with regard to their federal funding.  Alas, the CBC's way of sucking up to the conservatives did not impress them enough, or perhaps it was as simple as not knowing the proper hand shake.  Regardless, more money is not at this time being allocated, as far as I know.

Back to the apparent Bias the CBC has,  and remember I am and have been defending CBC Radio, today's Cross Country Checkup was dedicated to the question "Are you satisfied with Canada's role in Afghanistan?"  

The question is not in itself biased, nor was the cross section of respondents.  They ranged from brass to politician to civie, and ex members.  A very open discussion, and no censorship was observed.  An open field for any Canadian patient enough to stay on hold.  It was very fair and balanced.


----------



## Brad Sallows (9 Mar 2009)

>My confusion herein lies that you are absolutely under the control of the days government by serving as a member of the Forces.

The confusion originates with the notion that anyone is "absolutely" under the control of the government while serving as a member of the Forces.  It isn't only the individual on one side of the contract that is constrained by terms of agreement and laws of the country.

Some may try to tell others "what to think" but there is no power in any person to enforce it.


----------



## a_majoor (9 Mar 2009)

Bias comes in many forms.

If a private broadcaster chooses to represent only one side of an argument (or more commonly fail to represent another side of the argument by omission), they will fell the sting in the marketplace as their customers realize they are being cheated. Many MSM outlets in the United States are feeling the heat as readers, viewers and listeners drop away. "Air America", a talk radio network devoted to covering only "progressive" themes died on the vine as they discovered there were simply not enough listeners to attract advertisers.

Like I pointed out, a broadcaster funded in large part by the State has no such constraints, and if the CBC were to rely on advertising revenues and their actual viewers/listeners/readership numbers, it would suffer the fate of Air America.

Were that to happen, I might regret the loss of one or two shows, but will be satisfied in the knowledge that the talented people involved in those efforts will soon find other employment (or would be the core of a reconstituted CBC). What I do not accept is the idea that I must be compelled to pay for ideas and opinions that I do not agree with, and indeed that the level of State support actually supresses competing ideas (if there were another billion dollars in private hands available to invest in media, how many new outlets might have been funded? This is the question of "That Which is Seen, and That Which is Not Seen"

As for the organization and structure of the Armed Forces, I am in full agreement with the others of what we accept and why, and will add one caveat: if I were ever to find the terms and conditions of service intolerable, I can always put in my release.

Indeed that is the ultimate analogy: As a volunteer I freely agree and can freely release, just as in a free market I can choose to support or not support any market vendor. If I were conscripted, I have no choice in the matter and may not release (except on what terms the State may arbitrarily offer), similarly, I have no choice but to pay for the CBC.


----------



## BradCon (9 Mar 2009)

On a lighter note 

http://www.theonion.com/content/video/in_the_know_should_the_government
 :


----------



## aesop081 (9 Mar 2009)

BravoCharlie said:
			
		

> On a lighter note
> 
> http://www.theonion.com/content/video/in_the_know_should_the_government
> :



I'm not sure what your eye are rolling for ?


----------



## Rifleman62 (14 Mar 2009)

- In a week-long series, the National Post takes stock of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and asks: Where does it go from here? More on links.

See also: My Days at the Corp by George Jonas
http://digital.nationalpost.com/epaper/viewer.aspx

National Post  14 Mar 09
http://digital.nationalpost.com/epaper/viewer.aspx
*CBC tunes in to a new reality*
By Craig Offman

About two months ago, the CBC had a revealing dust-up with a local paper. On Jan. 19, the Moncton Times and Transcript criticized the way in which Canada’s Next Great Prime Minister treated contestant Camille Labchuk. 
Though the program forbade contestants with political experience, it permitted the former Green Party candidate to compete, only to disqualify her hours before announcing the semi-finalists. “If this was really reality TV,” wrote columnist Rod Allen, “the producers should be playing with their own money rather than yours.” 

Unable to let this awkward comment go, CBC spokesman Jeff Keay offered up an awkward phrase of his own.
The $50,000 prize comes from advertising revenue, not from taxpayers, he explained — adding that CBC TV is a “publicly subsidized commercial network.” 

The term might be a tongue-mangler, but it does spell out CBC TV’s dilemma — one that has intensified in recent weeks. 
As governments and advertisers slash their budgets, critics and supporters both wonder why we need a taxpayer-sponsored broadcaster that buys U.S. programs such as Jeopardy! and The Martha Stewart Show. Shouldn’t the Great Canadian Edifier produce more multi-culti shows like Little Mosque on the Prairie? And really, what does the cloying Single Girl add to the public discourse? 

A year from now all these eternal beard-stroking questions about Canadian culture might seem quaint: a more apt question might be whether the CBC will fall apart. 

As potential layoffs loom and programs are cancelled, union employees are talking as though the end of the CBC is nigh. 
Late last month, Hubert T. Lacroix, president and chief executive of the CBC, hinted at a more dire scenario in which he’d sell off the TV division. 

“We will, of course, look at every option to increase our revenues to minimize the impact on our programs and our people,” he told a soldout crowd at Toronto’s Empire Club on Feb. 26, adding that one effective measure would be “downgrading or selling parts or the whole of some of our TV or radio services.” 

Hoping at the time that the federal government would help cover a $60-million budget gap, Mr. Lacroix might have been speaking out of desperation. Three weeks later, the situation has worsened. 

This past Monday, Ottawa rejected the possibility of a bridge loan or advance on future subsidies. It also turned down the CRTC’s proposal to impose conditions on how much domestic broadcasters could spend on U.S. programming, leaving the CBC to face stiffer competition for fewer ad dollars. “[Canadian] broadcasters have their own business model,” said Heritage Minister James Moore. “They keep their business models going forward as best they can. Far be it for me to second-guess how to run a broadcast network and programming.” 

The much-heralded “factual programming” department, which was supposed to beef up Englishlanguage television’s bottom line, also suffered a series of high-profile setbacks in the past two years, beginning with the Gill Deacon Show. Highly publicized and made-over several times over the course of one season, the program was cancelled. 
On Tuesday, the network announced it was cancelling Fashion File and ending production on Steven & Chris, the show that took Ms. Deacon’s slot. 

But it’s not just the CBC that is about to hit a wall. Broadcasters are hurting everywhere. Advertising revenues are plummeting. Networks in Canada and the United States are cutting their budgets, shuttering stations and shrinking head counts. 

The stock of CBS, the most-viewed broadcaster in the United States, has dropped 50% in the past two months. 
Reliant on advertising, CBC TV faces the same challenges. “They’re in the same boat as CTV or Global,” said Stephen Tapp, a former top executive at CHUM. “No broadcaster can live the same way they did five years ago.” 
Public broadcasting is also in major flux. “Almost everywhere there is a lack of imagination, a failure to articulate what public broadcasting should look like,” said Michael Tracey, the author of The Decline and Fall of Public Service Broadcasting. “They don’t have a f----n clue.” 

U.S. public broadcasters such as National Public Radio will lay off 7% of its workforce and PBS’s New York flagship is laying off 14%. Britain’s Channel 4, a publicly owned, commercial broadcaster, is teetering on bankruptcy. Speculation grows that it might merge with the BBC’s profitable Worldwide division. 

A media professor at the University of Colorado at Boulder, Mr. Tracey said that the CBC and its counterparts have turned to “crude populism” as a way to lure viewers away from speciality channels — or from YouTubing, Facebooking and Twittering away their time. He also said that they have made the mistake of pushing a brand, which is an increasingly weak approach for a media property. 

In recent years, analysts have stressed that viewers are less loyal to channels than to programs, partly because of digital recording and pirated downloads. “Public broadcasting is not a brand,” Mr. Tracey said. “It is an institution.” This past January, Nicolas Sarkozy tried to rescue the dwindling fortunes of his country’s own broadcaster. France Télévisions, which also relied somewhat on ad revenue, has mostly gone public, a transformation that the French President called a “cultural revolution.” 

Mr. Sarkozy has explained that he wants the revamped service to “rival the quality of the BBC.” Others say he wants to bolster privately owned television channels with the redirected revenue. The government has scrapped prime-time advertising on the public channels and introduced new taxes on commercial-TV advertising revenue and Internet and telephone providers. Combined, the measures would raise nearly $1-billion, which presumably would go toward subsidizing the network. 

In Canada, the government has not taken any aggressive steps to overhaul the broadcaster. Two years ago, Robert Rabinovitch, Mr. Lacroix’s predecessor, asked Bev Oda — the minister of Canadian Heritage at the time — for a long-term plan, which would have set out the expectations for the public broadcaster and provided the financial means to meet them on a five-year basis. It never happened. 

Bolstered by about $600-million in ad revenue, the corporation receives almost $1.1-billion to subsidize its 29 services, including English television, which receives 38% of the funding; its francophone counterpart takes in 25%.
But as a whole, the CBC remains relatively underfunded. 

According to a 2008 study conducted by the media research firm Nordicity Group, the CBC’s $34 annual per-capita subsidy is the thirdlowest among 18 Western countries — less than half of its French counterpart’s, which is $77. 
The BBC, a state-owned entity, directly taxes its citizens for the service.

The CBC, on the other hand, has to service two language groups across five time zones. Unlike the BBC, which is typically led by a board-appointed media veteran, the CBC is often led by a political appointee. Like most of his predecessors, Mr. Lacroix has never had a top job in a media company. At the same time, he is accountable only to the Prime Minister. 
“There is an absence of accountability to the board,” said Ian Morrison, the spokesman for the CBC watchdog group Friends of Canadian Broadcasting. “At the same time, there is no arm’s-length relationship with the government.” 

Mr. Morrison suggested a BBC-like model in which the board, composed of TV veterans, nominates the president, who reports back to the board. But he is pessimistic about the possibility. “It’s too radical a change. I can’t see it happening.” 
At the same time, radical changes to English-language TV two years ago have not made an overall difference. 

Hoping to attract more viewers before prime time, it controversially bought the rights to U.S. game shows such as Wheel of Fortune. Aiming at a younger, hipper demographic, it developed shows such as the The Border, Intuition and the Douglas Coupland-inspired jPod. Going more urbane and affluent, it produced the Gill Deacon Show and The Hour. 

In prime time, at least, the changes have paid off. The market share during that period has jumped to 8% - 9% in the first six months versus the previous season, but the bump hasn’t lifted the rest of English TV. 

According to the CBC’s Jeff Keay, there has been a 2% increase in total viewership over the past three years. 
Ad and program sales in the past two years have been flat at $329-million, up only around 2% from 2005. During the same period, the network’s costs have increased by 2%. “The best measure of how we’re doing is in the prime-time slot,” said Richard Stursberg, the CBC’s executive vice-president of English services. “I’m thrilled with how far we’ve come.” So far, the CBC has reacted tentatively to its cold, fiscal reality with nip-and-tuck adjustments, cancelling programs while refraining from large-scale layoffs. 

But when Mr. Lacroix and his management present a strategy to the board of directors next Monday and Tuesday in Toronto, all that might change. During his Empire Club address, Mr. Lacroix hinted at a grim future — with or without dismembering the corporation. According to his talking notes, the CBC might insert more U.S. content into its prime-time schedule or shrink its geographic coverage, both of which would weaken the corporation’s case as the purveyor of all things Canadian and, in turn, diminish its case for taxpayer money. Losing government money at such a delicate time would mean even less funding for original programming, already a major cost centre. 

Early last year, when advertising was more robust, Nordicity concluded that low ad budgets combined with the expectations of U.S.-style production values create “a poor economic environment for television programming in Canada.” 
It concluded that “Canadian programming cannot be profitable without government intervention.” 

Mr. Lacroix also has to consider downsizing expenses. “I’m hearing that they might want to lay off 600 or 700 people with some seniority,” surmised Mr. Morrison. It’s a figure that’s bandied about a lot. 

Earning somewhere about$80,000$90,000 year, the unionized employees would likely require 18 months worth of severance pay. In total, this would cost about $500-million. 

University of Calgary media professor Bart Beaty said that given the fact that salaries take up 12% of the operating budget, layoffs are inevitable. “They’re stretched to finish things like the high-definition layout,” he said, referring to an offering that has reached selected markets across the country, excluding his hometown. “It’s ridiculous. You can watch Leafs games in HD, but in Calgary, the fourth-largest market, you can’t watch the Flames in HD. They expect us to be happy about this?” 

Co-author of Canadian Television Today, Mr. Beaty said this is a pivotal time for large-scale transformation, a reinvention of the CBC’s business model. Some experts think the CBC should shed its dramatic programming, which is relatively expensive to produce, and become more news oriented. 

Others point to the “radio” model. Similar to the Sarkozy approach, it would mean a total retrenchment from advertising, but this would leave the CBC with even less money and make it more reliant on the government — unless a Sarkozy-like redistribution were arranged. 

There is also a chance the BBC model would work: put a professional in charge and provide a 10-year mandate. 
“A mandate helps safeguard independence,” said Mr. Stursberg, adding that the process of scripting, producing and editing can take up to three years. “With only one year, it’s difficult to do your financing in an orderly way.” 

A new president every two years or three years is also a liability: The learning curve kicks in when they’re halfway through his tenure. Mr. Beaty said that in the nearterm, at least, the CBC could be doing a better job on digital technology. There aren’t enough podcasts. You can’t download content onto your phone. 

Former CHUM executive Stephen Tapp also says that the CBC could focus more on its digital platforms, offering more broadband video and mobile content. “It’s a different world now,” Mr. Tapp said. “You have to follow the audience around. They’re not going to follow you.”


----------



## BradCon (14 Mar 2009)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> I'm not sure what your eye are rolling for ?




Just looking up Sergeant


----------



## a_majoor (16 Mar 2009)

From the Globe and Mail:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090313.wcosimp14/BNStory/politics/



> *A beleaguered CBC should ask itself: Who cares?*
> 
> JEFFREY SIMPSON
> 
> ...


----------



## BradCon (16 Mar 2009)

May CBC Radio Live forever. ;D


----------



## Rifleman62 (16 Mar 2009)

BravoCharlie 

Did you read some of the comments to the G & M column?  I was a consistant CBC Radio listener.
" -  I long for the days of quiet, intelligent Peter Gzowski. He was a political hack, sure, but he had class and was great radio"
 -  "As It Happens, The House, Basic Black. My all time favourite: Sunday Morning. The hosts with real personalities, all over the political spectrum. Barbara Frum, Ian Brown, Mary Lou Finlay. How did it all go so wrong? "

I forgot about Basic Black on Saturday afternoons. Originated in Wpg until he retired and moved to the BC coast.

How did it go wrong? Smart a**, we know better producers and people like "Ms Tremonti on Radio 1 is unable to hide her bias, .... I listen to her just to see if she will change. Never happens". I do listen to her occasionally to get a dose of puke.

"The new breed of journalist has killed CBC, and it is now going through its death throes. I was a faithful CBC listener, but who really cares anymore - not me! "


----------



## Kat Stevens (16 Mar 2009)

I stopped listening to CBC Radio when Dr Bundolo's Pandemonium Medicine Show was cancelled.


----------



## Rifleman62 (16 Mar 2009)

Good one. How about The Frantics?


----------



## BradCon (16 Mar 2009)

Allright, I admit that I don't wanti Tremanti.  She sucks royally, and I may not be as old as some of you coffin dodgers, and I've been only listening to CBC radio for about 5 years,  But AIH, Ideas, even out front are grat weekday evening shows.  As I am a supporter of the arts  I'll go out and Q does a good job of finding relevant guests and delivers provocative interviews, my complaint there is that  Gomeshi seems to have a large ego, he redeems himself by asking controversial questions though.

Age of Persusaion: good,  Wire Tap: good, Randy Bachman.....he's boring to listen to but plays good tunes.  What about Afghanada, Enright, or Dispatches.  All quality programming, and what about all the overnight international coverage.  All commercial free.   and CCU to boot.

People,  are you not tired of being told your inferior every ten minutes by private broadcasting advertisers, For 33$ per year, what else could give you such a return,  it's frickin 9 cents a day, suck it up.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (16 Mar 2009)

I am actually a CBC radio fan.  That said, they are screwing up big time with their morning format.  And actually I would prefer that CBC follow the PBS/NPR model- take no advertising, some government funding and make the rest up on subscriptions/fund-raising drives.  I would pay.

Then, concentrate on programming that the commercial broadcasters are not doing- documentaries, in depth reports, concerts, etc.  Maybe even sports. Nothing wrong with running comedy and satire, but for cripes sake, Global and CTV do US gameshows like Jeopardy!- CBC doesn't need to.

I also note that Radio NZ is funded less than CBC, per capita.  It is as good or better, so it can be done.


----------



## ModlrMike (16 Mar 2009)

I agree. CBC should focus on information rather than entertainment. That being said, their current information offerings seem to be so much "zero sum" research in that they appear to ask the question after having determined the answer.


----------



## BradCon (16 Mar 2009)

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/090316/national/cbc_funding


TORONTO - CBC's board of directors met Monday to discuss strategies for the economic downturn as a watchdog group warned against putting ads on CBC Radio - a possibility that the public broadcaster raised last month.

CBC spokesman Marco Dube would not speculate on the nature of the closed-door meeting, expected to continue Tuesday, saying only that a difficult economic climate will force it "to make difficult choices that will affect our people and our programs."

Ian Morrison, spokesman for Friends of Canadian Broadcasting, predicted deep cuts to staff and programming, but also said that the broadcaster has been eyeing the ad revenue potential of CBC Radio.

He pointed to a speech CBC president Hubert Lacroix gave to the Empire Club of Canada in February in which Lacroix said the CBC may have to look at "increasing the advertising we accept on the air."

Morrison says that can only mean one thing.

"They're already selling all they can (on television) and they're saying we're not getting as much money for it so where could they "increase advertising we accept on the air?' " asked Morrison, whose group launched an online campaign late last week to protest ads on CBC Radio.

"They only have one other vehicle - radio."

Dube would only say that the two-day meeting was part of an ongoing budget-planning process.

"We are facing difficult choices and we will have to make difficult choices that will affect our people and our programs but until we hear more on that we cannot speculate on anything in particular," he said from Ottawa.

"We will be able to communicate something clearer, probably around the beginning of the next fiscal year (April 1)."

In addition to increased advertising, the CBC has said other budgetary options could including selling off assets, increasing American programming and reducing news coverage.

Morrison said research data indicated radio ads could yield $95 million per year, but it was not clear if that figure accounted for the current recession.

Still, he noted that several obstacles would make it difficult for the CBC to go this route. For one thing, the CRTC mandates that CBC Radio be ad free and Morrison said it was unlikely to change its position. In addition, small-town private radio would likely lobby against increased ad competition and find a sympathetic ear from the Tory government, he said.

Such a move would also undoubtedly raise a firestorm among core listeners.

Morrison said putting ads on CBC Radio would be especially devastating to private radio.

"Private radio is in bad shape right now, so this would cause the bankruptcy of a substantial number of radio stations in smaller and medium size communities."

Morrison blamed much of the CBC's funding woes on the purchase of U.S. game shows "Jeopardy" and "Wheel of Fortune," complaining that the programs haven't delivered big enough audiences and that the corporation locked into an expensive multi-year contracts that it cannot afford.

Lacroix has said that ad revenues have dropped by as much as $60 million this year and will likely only get worse.

_____________________


Well there we go, if the CBC makes this decision, they will most likely loose me as a regular listener. :rage:


----------



## SeaKingTacco (16 Mar 2009)

There is a limited pool of advertising dollars for radio.  And if, as it was pointed out, by CBC commencing radio commercials, it puts the (taxpaying) competition out of business, it is kind of counter-productive.

Besides, as BC rightly points out, it would alienate whatever remains of the core audience.  Screwed either way...


----------



## observor 69 (16 Mar 2009)

This isn't the first time the public has had to think about "hence the CBC.'  I agree some model similar to PBS/NPR looks good. In depth research, time to properly examine and discuss a topic, professionalism ...gotta love it!

My stations NPR/PBS  WBFO  and  WNED .


----------



## a_majoor (16 Mar 2009)

Without further comment:

http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/story.html?id=1393657



> *State of the CBC: Tear it all down*
> 
> Lorne Gunter,  National Post
> 
> ...


----------



## Rifleman62 (17 Mar 2009)

I believe that the amount that an advertiser pays is linked to the "ratings" from BBM. Consequently, a radio/TV station with the highest share of the market can"demand" the highest dollar for broadcasting the commercial. The Super Bowel is an example. I further believe that if the CBC was to commence adverts on radio we will be subject to the most irritating ads , including continuous repetition of the same ad and "But wait, order now and we will send you two (fill in the blank), all for $19.95 plus S & H.


----------



## Rifleman62 (17 Mar 2009)

PS. I also enjoy NPR/PBS.


----------



## YZT580 (19 Mar 2009)

Here in Europe there are only two English choices: BBC and CNN.  Consequently, I have become an expert on BBC programming.  When it comes to doing programmes on either nature or on history, there is no one who can touch the BBC IMHO.  The camera work is outstanding but they are well aware that they are working for a limited audience.  The CBC needs to do the same, forget ratings and go for quality programmes that organisations needing to make money cannot do.  We already subsidize them to an equivalent amount to the British licensing fee so let them work on their budget.  The BBC orchestra still does live concerts: CBC doesn't even have one anymore.  Junk the sitcoms and reality shows and produce programmes that introduce Canada to Canadians: geologically and historically, animals and people.  Either that, or shut it down.


----------



## Rifleman62 (19 Mar 2009)

Fine, but can the CBC be trusted? IMHO, no. 

The CBC specializes in revisionest history. The CBC salivates over P.E. Trudeau.  Remember The Valour and Horror?


----------



## The Bread Guy (19 Mar 2009)

YZT580 said:
			
		

> .... We already subsidize them to an equivalent amount to the British licensing fee so let them work on their budget ....


Could you share what you know of the license fee scheme?  If I understand correctly, British TV owners pay a one-time or annual license fee, which goes straight into the BBC's kitty?  Any other state money go in, or is it all user pay?


----------



## Old Sweat (19 Mar 2009)

Tony,

We used to have an annual licence fee to fund the CBC. I recall that my dad purchased it in the local post office. The fee was abolished at some time after I saved Western Democracy by enlisting, perhaps when I was in Germany.


----------



## The Bread Guy (19 Mar 2009)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> Tony,
> 
> We used to have an annual licence fee to fund the CBC. I recall that my dad purchased it in the local post office. The fee was abolished at some time after I saved Western Democracy by enlisting, perhaps when I was in Germany.



Interesting...  Wonder what the result would be if people could "vote" by buying a license or paying an annual license fee to own a TV?


----------



## Rifleman62 (19 Mar 2009)

Tony, the people of Canada have already voted. The CBC's market share is 8% as stated in the links to this thread.


----------



## The Bread Guy (19 Mar 2009)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Tony, the people of Canada have already voted. The CBC's market share is 8% as stated in the links to this thread.


At one level (passive consumption), yup, but how much would the equation change if people were told, "You want the CBC?  You'll have to pay out of pocket for it."?  Would people fork up?


----------



## a_majoor (19 Mar 2009)

Sell CBC as a subscription channel on cable and Sirius radio and you will have the definitave answer.


----------



## a_majoor (20 Mar 2009)

Without further comment:

http://www.drjandmrk.com/?p=2967



> *More non-bias*
> March 19th, 2009
> Email This Post  Print This Post
> 
> ...


----------



## RangerRay (24 Mar 2009)

BravoCharlie said:
			
		

> IMO CBC slants the news is such away that it persuade it's listeners to hold political belief that is reflective of a "good people".  The CBC challenges our nation to be empathetic and compassionate towards it's own citizenry and it is wary of thought or culture that would undermine those qualities.
> 
> By not promoting the ideals of mass consumption, environmental irresponsibility, zealous christian belief, or selfishness the CBC provides Canadians and International fans with the flavour of maple syrup, fresh air and clean water. It also tries to protect us from drowning in tailings ponds, suffocating from mass emissions, and becoming obese fast food junkies.
> 
> So Yes the CBC has a bias of which they are always taking suggestions from their audience on how to improve and; I don't always agree with everything the CBC says, I conclude that the CBC bias is one that is good for Canada



In your opinion.

Your attitude is no different from the American far right who feels that anyone a hair width to the left of him is "un-American".  

Quite frankly, it pi$$es me off to no end.  

My family has been in this country long before Confederation, and to suggest that my views are "un-Canadian" or "un-good" is the height of hubris.

To suggest that because I do not worship at the altar of left-wing public broadcasting makes me less of a citizen than a "lefty from East Vancouver", is contemptible and disgusting, especially in a free society such as ours.

This morally superior attitude that the "CBC slants the news is such away that it persuade it's listeners to hold political belief that is reflective of a 'good people' " is why only urban left-wing elitists hold the CBC in high regard nowadays.


----------



## BradCon (24 Mar 2009)

RangerRay,

You're awfully close to being that which you accuse me off.  

I have not attempted to tell anyone what is morally correct, nor have I insinuated that people who have beliefs that are not congruent with mine or CBC's are not good either,  I merely voiced my opinion that the CBC has done a great deal of good for our country and I would like 
to see the tradition continue.



And by the way

My rights,as a Canadian are exactly the same as yours, and unlike the military, I don't believe that your families "time in"  gives your voice any more strength.

And Jeez, the CBC is a centrist organization for christ sake, not a home for pinko's like so many believe.


----------



## 2 Cdo (24 Mar 2009)

BravoCharlie said:
			
		

> And Jeez, the CBC is a centrist organization for christ sake, not a home for pinko's like so many believe.



How about a heads up the next time you make a joke. That's one of the funniest things I've read in some time!


----------



## Kirkhill (24 Mar 2009)

BravoCharlie said:
			
		

> .....
> 
> And Jeez, the CBC is a centrist organization for christ sake, not a home for pinko's like so many believe.




Based on mean tendencies, and your earlier comments, that suggest that you see yourself as a centrist  and that you agree with the CBC.  You might even see yourself as slightly to the left of centre with your occasional disagreement with the CBC line being that they are coming at the issue from a perspective that is further to the right than your own.

Meself, standing on the ground I occupy, the CBC approaches issues from much farther left than I find comforting.

Its all about where the observer stands.


----------



## BradCon (24 Mar 2009)

Bravo Kirkhill

Sa many of are perceptions become conflicts when we forget the relativity of it all and fail to empathize with one another.


----------



## RangerRay (24 Mar 2009)

BravoCharlie said:
			
		

> RangerRay,
> 
> You're awfully close to being that which you accuse me off.
> 
> ...



I do no such thing.  At no time have I suggested that someone of differing views is "bad" or "un-Canadian".

YOU are the one implying that "CBC slants the news is such away that it persuade it's listeners to hold political belief that is reflective of a "good people' ".  To me, that would suggest that my views, which for the most part are opposite, are reflective of a "bad people".  Since this is a national public broadcaster, this could be further interpreted that this my views, since reflective of a "bad people", are "un-Canadian".  

I agree that my family's "time in" does not give me any more rights than any other Canadian.  I only bring up my ancestry to show how ridiculous it is for a national public broadcaster to have the opinion that someone of my point of view would be "un-Canadian".  Unlike many people, I am of the opinion that my Canada includes a wide variety of viewpoints, however misguided.

And I'm not sure what you mean by "unlike the military, I don't believe that your families "time in"  gives your voice any more strength."  Last time I checked, the military doesn't give anyone's voice more strength based on family's "in time".  I assume that there is a typo in there somewhere.

I do object to a national public broadcaster taking my money and calling me a bad Canadian.  If they want to tell me how bad I am, then they should stop taking MY taxes to pay for it, and ask for money from those who do hold those beliefs.


----------



## BradCon (24 Mar 2009)

A couple of points,

to hold views opposite of what the CBC champions, is indeed to be bad,
 for example, your extreme belief that counters the CBC's opinion means that you would like to:

to embrace racism
to privatize health care,
to marry religion to politics,
to eliminate democracy as we know it
wage war on our allies
disrespect our soldiers and their families, 

ect, ect , ect

 so you are not actually holding all those opinions are you?  I don't believe you do, or that you are bad, just emotionally invested in saving your 9 cents a day,  If I am wrong: shame.


and what I meant by my statement about "time in", and I can admit my naivety on all thing military, is that time in is positively correlated to rank, when one looks  at individual members.  

I'm wet behind the ears as a military man so forgive my ignorance about thing related to the CF , but I AM an experienced citizen of this country who has been across it several times and can even believe that you are a good person too, although we may disagree on some things.


----------



## Kirkhill (25 Mar 2009)

BravoCharlie said:
			
		

> A couple of points,
> 
> to hold views opposite of what the CBC champions, is indeed to be bad,
> for example, your extreme belief that counters the CBC's opinion means that you would like to:
> ...




You must have spent a lot of time to gather up all that amount of straw BC.

And by the way......

Racism is.
Health Care should be privatized
Islam and Judaism, not to mention Jainism, Hinduism and Catholicism do marry religion and politics (Same is true for Presbyterians, Methodist and Pentecostals)
Democracy is variously defined
It depends on which allies

I can agree whole-heartedly with the last one.

But you forgot the most important one......the sine qua non of the left.  The perfectability of the individual.  And that is not going to happen.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (25 Mar 2009)

BravoCharlie said:
			
		

> A couple of points,
> 
> to hold views opposite of what the CBC champions, is indeed to be bad,
> for example, your extreme belief that counters the CBC's opinion means that you would like to:
> ...



That's the biggest bunch of bigoted horseshit you've spouted in, oh, the last day or so. Give it a rest. You're getting tedious, boring and have been regurgitating the same 'opinion' over and over again. Circling the drain as it were.

Had more, but I'd have to put myself on a warning if I hadn't deleted it.


----------



## medicineman (25 Mar 2009)

Psssst, BTW the word "etcetera" is abbreviated "etc" - "ect" is short for Electro-Convulsive Therapy.  Just thought I'd throw some gas on the fire... :nod:

MM


----------



## BradCon (25 Mar 2009)

I can't wait to be among you.
 :camo:


----------



## The Bread Guy (25 Mar 2009)

BravoCharlie said:
			
		

> I can't wait to be among you.
> :camo:



And then you too might see situations where you know what has been happening, and it looks/sounds very different in the CBC story.  It's this kind of situation that fosters less-than-complete faith in some media outlets some here exhibit.


----------



## kratz (25 Mar 2009)

I read that CBC was announcing cuts later this morning, so I waited to hear more before posting this. CTV finally published enough details to update the discussion. Over all, I do not think the cuts are as bad as first anticipated.

CTV.ca


> CBC cutting 800 jobs amid sinking ad revenues
> Updated Wed. Mar. 25 2009 12:12 PM ET
> The Canadian Press
> 
> ...


----------



## Rinker (1 May 2009)

Finally people that agree that CBC is totally biased to the liberal agenda. But I do think it is a good network, unfortunately to many people turn it into 100% truth and believe every word that comes out of the television set. And living on the west coast or left coast. Almost everyone here speaks of it as if it is the truth and nothing but the truth. Until something like the Pakistan footage, they think that they just sought out a single incident. As for the red they fluant around, it is almost like it is some sort of subliminal messaging. But that is just my biased opinion on others biased opinions.


----------



## Greymatters (1 May 2009)

Please clarify references to 'Pakistan footage', 'single incident', and 'the red they flaunt'...


----------



## Edward Campbell (10 Sep 2009)

There is a subtext to the story below, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _CBC_ website, which, to its credit, the CBC is making on air. Someone in the audience of the “closed” meeting recorded Harper’s speech and sent it to the Liberal Party of Canada. The Liberal Party of Canada sent it to the CBC.

Now the CBC is *right* to run, even highlight, this story. It is news. There is no political bias in this action – in fact, in highlighting how it came by the story the CBC is being very responsible.

The “rest of the story” is related to the Liberal Party of Canada’s _choice_ of media outlets. It appears to have assumed that the CBC is most likely to run a story that puts the Conservatives in a less than flattering light; a story that brings us back to the *hidden agenda*® and all that. Did the LPC think that CTV or Global would be less _compliant_?

 http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/09/09/prime-minister-stephen-harper-video-marjority.html


> Majority government in reach: Harper
> 
> Wednesday, September 9, 2009
> 
> ...


----------



## GAP (10 Sep 2009)

Does anyone seriously think the Ignateiff is not extolling the virtues of the LPC gaining a majority....even Jacks fun pack envisions this in his/their nightly dreams....what's so controversial about this?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (10 Sep 2009)

I see nothing earth shattering, conspiritorial or dasdardly in what Harper is saying. He's just speaking the truth and not doing the regular politician sugar coat.

He has not done anything other than tell people to be ready when the liebrals pull the trigger and what their goal should be.

Librano hyperboyle.


----------



## Rifleman62 (10 Sep 2009)

Sending it to the CBC just shows you how screwed up the LPC is as only (according to the last BBM ratings), only 8% of Canadians watch the CBC. Probably about the same on CBC radio which varies from city to city. Seems higher in Ottawa and Halifax for example. (I heard it on CBC Radio One this a.m.)

BBM Radio S2 2009:  http://www.bbm.ca/en/radio_top_line.html 

I have no doubt the CTV and Global would run it. I believe the head of CTV national news took a leave of absence to be director of publicity or such for LPC during two elections. CTV/G & M owned by same corporate beneficial owner.

P.S. The Cons should add to their election platform the elimination of public election funds (as attempted previously) and legislative revision of private political financing to eliminate jump to the pump whenever the LPC gets another leader (Bob Ray of sunshine in 2009!). I am sure it is a winning plank.


----------



## Edward Campbell (10 Sep 2009)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Sending it to the CBC just shows you how screwed up the LPC is as only (according to the last BBM ratings), only 8% of Canadians watch the CBC. Probably about the same on CBC radio which varies from city to city. Seems higher in Ottawa and Halifax for example. (I heard it on CBC Radio One this a.m.)
> 
> BBM Radio S2 2009:  http://www.bbm.ca/en/radio_top_line.html
> 
> ...




Nope. It's him:







or someone else from _la belle province_.

See this in the Election 2009 thread.

Remember the custom, since 1880: Blake, _Laurier_, King, _St Laurent_, Pearson, _Trudeau_, Turner, _Chrétien_, Martin, _Dion_, Ignatieff, _______ .


----------



## Rifleman62 (10 Sep 2009)

Yes, I remember your post. I agree (incl your characterisation) and hope it is Denis the Menace. That would surly alienate lots of folks you would think. Sunbeam would give him a run though.


----------



## dapaterson (10 Sep 2009)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Nope. It's him:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Question: Must it be a Quebecois?  Or would a Quebecer do?  Or an Acadian?

The custom may require some clarification... we live in intersting times...


----------



## Edward Campbell (10 Sep 2009)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Question: Must it be a Quebecois?  Or would a Quebecer do?  Or an Acadian?
> 
> The custom may require some clarification... we live in intersting times...




That's a great question which only a real Liberal insider could answer. But I, a card carrying, paid up, true blue Tory will give it a try.

Prior to the 1960s it *could* have been an Acadian or a Franco-Ontarian (which, by the way, was the "slot" Paul Martin Sr filled in St Laurent's cabinet) but the quiet revolution changed all that. Now Québecers are fully imbued with the _deux nations_ theory and, as I read their minds, they now believe the leadership must rotate between the two _nations_: Canada and Québec.

If Dominic LeBlanc wants to be PM he has to do so as an Anglo. Ms Jennings is a black, female Paul Martin – just another Anglo who happens to live in Québec.


----------



## The Bread Guy (17 Sep 2009)

....quoting a former (W) Bush official saying how sad it would be to see Canada leave AFG:


> A former head of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security calls it "regrettable" that Canada plans to withdraw from the conflict in Afghanistan.
> 
> "The consequences of failure in this part of the world will not be limited to the United States," said Michael Chertoff, who served from 2005 to 2009 in the administration of former president George W. Bush.
> 
> ...



What are the odds this story would have run on either "The Current" or on CBC.ca, say, when Mr. Chertoff was in power?  To be fair, I can't guess what he would have said at that point, but I never heard such a story.

Is this an example of not necessarily POLITICAL bias, but a STRUCTURAL bias of "whatever government wants to do, it's our job to oppose it point out its problems?"  

Along the same lines, where was THIS _Globe & Mail_ story a year ago?


> One of Canada's leading observers on Afghanistan is pushing back against growing doubts over the merits of its mission there, calling for more international troops on the ground and a renewed focus on attacking militant targets in Pakistan.
> 
> Chris Alexander, who served as Canada's first ambassador to Afghanistan after the fall of the Taliban, said Canada and its allies should hold an international conference on Afghanistan later this year to set new goals to reflect the changing reality.
> 
> “Yes, this mission is taking longer than everyone had hoped, or than we expected because the conflict is getting worse. So we need to have a serious discussion about how we can succeed with the investments that we are prepared to make,” Mr. Alexander said in a wide-ranging interview with The Globe and Mail Wednesday....


----------



## Roy Harding (17 Sep 2009)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> ...
> 
> Along the same lines, where was THIS _Globe & Mail_ story a year ago?



I _dimly_ recall this story being on the radio - although not the details.  Either The Current, As It Happens, or perhaps The House.

I'll see if I can dig up a reference on the CBC site later today.


----------



## The Bread Guy (25 Sep 2009)

...one person's "censorship" is another's "protection of proprietery or competitive information" - this, from the Canadian Press:


> The Canadian Broadcasting Corp. has locked horns with Canada's information ombudsman over the public broadcaster's right to keep information about its journalism and programming secret.
> 
> The information commissioner of Canada issued a subpoena to CBC ordering the Crown corporation to hand over hundreds of pages of sensitive records in the first test of a new provision of the Access to Information Act.
> 
> ...


Something about sauce, geese and ganders comes to mind?


----------



## 40below (25 Sep 2009)

Sweet, sweet FOI request.

The poster above me already knows this, but if any of the rest of you aren't familiar with the system, once an FOI is fulfilled, the records released are part of the public record and can be accessed by anyone, in full and for free, with none of the typical fighting that the story references. Just call the FOI co-ordinator for the org in question and they'll often fax or email you the docs within minutes. 

(This applies to all federal and provincial ministries and agencies and many, like DND, maintain a running log of fulfilled requests you can scan for anything that piques your interest, but I will definitely be piggybacking this CBC one when it comes to fruition.)


----------



## ModlrMike (25 Sep 2009)

Public funding, public access. Period! I'm sure the CBC has genuinely secret information (much like DND), but these requests do not qualify.


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (25 Sep 2009)

I'm not sure that CBC deliberately tries to maintain a liberal (or Liberal viewpoint.)  I think it is simply a reflection of the liberal tendency to see all viewpoints other than their own as irrational.

Ted Byfield, publisher of the Alberta Report magazine eons ago, said that it was easier to hire a conservative and teach them journalism than hiring a journalist and teach them conservatism.  Alberta Report took pride in its conservative slant and despite a large circulation had no access to national advertising and ultimately failed.  For a short period of time they did have access to national ads but people who disagreed with their viewpoints put a quick stop to it, portraying them as racist, sexist etc etc.  I loved it.  It is rare for a conservative to actually read something he agrees with.

The history

https://www.albertaviews.ab.ca/issues/2004/mayjun04/mayjun04byfield.pdf


----------



## kratz (8 Oct 2009)

CBC.ca is selectively trying to stir the pot with this news story. They state the actions of the Liberals today, but not the reason why the government was compelled into deficit budgets through the Dec/Jan power play.


----------



## Rifleman62 (13 Mar 2010)

Old thread, but CBC continues to fail to represent all Canadian taxpayers with "fair and balanced" news reporting. The CBC serves some taxpayers who believe in it, but not the majority. CBC's market share has dwindled. We now have three Canadian TV networks, and numerous radio networks., availabilty of foreign TV/radio networks, the internet, satellight media, etc. Gone are the days when the CBC was the only national provider in Canada.

Variety, http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118010702.html?categoryid=14&cs=1, on 31 Oct 09 reported on the CBC News division:



> For years, CBC was the go-to source for TV news in Canada, and "The National" was the uncontested ratings leader. But it has slipped dramatically over the _past 15-to-20 years _ as its commercial rivals carve into its share.
> 
> This fall, CTV’s "CTV National News" at 11 p.m. had an average audience of 1.2 million, up 37% from last fall.
> 
> ...



The following did not get comenteted upon at Army.ca 

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN0511809220100306



> Canada weighing gov't asset sales-finance minister
> Fri Mar 5, 2010 11:36pm EST* Finance minister sees opportunities for sales
> 
> Currencies  |  Mergers & Acquisitions  |  Bonds
> ...



My hope is that the CBC in its entirity, or less the Northern Service is on the chopping block. The CBC has outlived it's usefulness or any requirement to have any public funding. Selling the CBC would save a billion dollars anually in operating funds, plus the sale of CBC assets (buildings, equipment, etc) would bring in a few billion to reduce the debt.

From small dead animals is but one example of the regular antics of the CBC:

http://smalldeadanimals.com/



> March 13, 2010
> 
> "Now, leaving aside the facts, just for a few years..."
> Everyone knows the details already, but the basic facts are essential here: former MP Rahim Jaffer was charged last year with drunk driving and drug possession. Several days ago, under an agreement reached between his lawyer and an Ontario provincial Crown prosecutor, Jaffer pleaded guilty to lesser charges. The provincial prosecutor said there was no reasonable prospect of a conviction on the more serious charges; according to this report, police sources said that "a rookie OPP officer failed to follow proper procedures during a strip search of Jaffer."
> ...


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (14 Mar 2010)

I am hoping that axing CBC is part of the Conservative hidden agenda should they ever get a majority.  The unfortunate thing is that they probably don't have a hidden agenda.  Governments live and die by how well they serve the centre and Harper is a more of a pragmatist than a conservative.  Still it would be a nice touch in the first year of a majority.  They could give Global and CTV $20 million each for northern service and pocket $960 million.


----------



## a_majoor (23 Apr 2010)

More on how they operate:

http://ezralevant.com/2010/04/unethical-pollster-frank-grave.html



> *Unethical pollster Frank Graves must be fired*
> By Ezra Levant on April 22, 2010 10:36 PM | Permalink | Comments
> 
> Frank Graves is the president of a polling company called Ekos Research.
> ...



Say your piece: http://www.cbc.ca/ombudsman/page/contact.html


----------



## The Bread Guy (23 Apr 2010)

Good catch, Thucydides - funny how this latest tidbit came out so quickly, eh?    Full statement attached (in reference to statements made to the _Globe & Mail_):


> .... First of all, let me make it clear that I have never been a member of any political party. EKOS Research has never conducted polling or other public opinion research for any political party, nor has it ever been retained to give advice of any kind.
> 
> Journalists frequently ask pollsters what advice they might offer to a party or politician. This journalistic device does not imply that the pollster is in fact a political “adviser”. In the course of the interview with Lawrence Martin I offered the Liberals some unsolicited strategic “advice”. To the extent that readers may have taken the inference I had previously proffered this advice to the Liberal Party of Canada, it was a mistaken inference.
> 
> ...


Let the "reading between the lines" begin...


----------



## a_majoor (24 Apr 2010)

> Dear Thucydides
> 
> I write to acknowledge receipt of your e-mail.  It is the customary practice of CBC’s Office of the Ombudsman to share complaints with the relevant programmers, who have the right to respond first to criticism of their work.  I have therefore shared your e-mail with Jennifer McGuire, General Manager and Editor in Chief of CBC News.  If you are not satisfied with the response you receive you may ask me to review the matter.
> 
> ...



We'll see....


----------



## a_majoor (26 Apr 2010)

Another good reason to pull the plug on the CBC. If these "media professionals" were worth their salt, then perhaps a few more than 1 in 12 Canadians would be watching and listening. A bonus would be all those radio and television studios would be available for low costs for real local and regional broadcasters willing to attract a real audience:

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=1393657&p=1



> *State of the CBC: Tear it all down*
> 
> Lorne Gunter,  National Post
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (27 Apr 2010)

WTF?

http://freedomnation.blogspot.com/



> *CBC reporter attacks CTF for owning a car*
> 
> Chris Rand at the CBC wanted to take a shot at the Canadian Taxpayer Federation. He really did, you can sense a certain desperation to find something to take them to task with. The CTF was submitting a petition calling for an end to pensions for convicted criminals. Mr. Rand did not want to talk about the issue or take a stand on it. He wanted to talk about Derek Feldebrant’s car.
> 
> ...



If a $500 salvaged car is the cahet of new wealth and privilege, then my used $13,000 Dodge Caravan must make me the new Bill Gates  :


----------



## Rifleman62 (27 Apr 2010)

Via Small Dead Animals:

http://www.theteamakers.com/2010/04/21/why-we-leak/#comment-12069

See all the weekly stats and the blog that started this at link.

Anonymous says: 

April 25, 2010 • 6:16 pm 

Read ‘em and weep…the CBC News story
- Medium Close Up

We have been hearing an amazing amount of self congratulations from CBC management about how the new National is doing well or it’s on the right track. There has been a series of hero-grams sent to staff pushing them to keep up the good work. The bosses maintain that the changes in the newscast are a work in progress and that staff is busting their butts.

All this blather in spite of the fact that I have never met a single viewer who thinks the changes in the newscast were anything other than awful. In fact many media friends, including some who still work for The National tell me they have stopped watching the program. Non media friends complain about the set, Peter’s walks, the dumb reporter interviews that add nothing to show, but really, would they notice any of this if the quality of the stories and storytelling was high enough to keep them interested in the content? I suspect not.

It has been too easy to blame criticism on unhappy former employees who are disgruntled because they were pushed out. It has been too easy to point fingers at older viewers who don’t like change. It has been too easy to fall back on “it’s a work in progress” excuses. The truth is, and the numbers are all too clear, the new National is an abject failure that has not resonated with the viewing audience and worse, has turned many loyal news junkies away.

With the help of a mathematically inclined friend who has access to the ratings I put together a table that clearly shows how poorly The National is doing. But first an executive summary of our findings:

We used 70 programs (Monday-Friday) in 2009 from the beginning of January to the second week of April. The National average was about 804 thousand, while CTV News got 993 thousand.

This year, 2010, we looked at 59 programs during the same period. (The Olympics made 11 weekdays not applicable.) This time the National averaged 644 thousand, CTV News — 1257 thousand. That’s almost exactly double. Using last year’s system — if you reasonably assume CTV News didn’t gain viewers, their ratings jump can be attributed to the new people meters — that would mean that The National has averaged less than 500 thousand in 2010 using the pre-people meter numbers, a ratings fall of almost 40%! Incredible and embarrassing…

Two other small observations. Last year, there were 9 days when The National actually got higher numbers than CTV. This season, it never got close. The other thing is that we picked a period when The National‘s ratings were actually UP! If you were to look at the September-December stretch, CTV’s numbers were regularly more than double, sometimes, even triple those of CBC’s flagship news program… The numbers are even more startling than we expected.

A few more facts to ponder. During the study period in 2009 the lowest rating at CBC was 615 thousand. In 2010 the lowest rating was 451 thousand. In fact the CBC failed to reach 500 thousand viewers four times. During that same period CTV News had four nights with over 1.5 million viewers.

Here’s the actual numbers for you to ponder:

2009 2010 (see link)

It is pretty obvious from the numbers, The National is getting killed since the new format kicked in. Only five times in three months did the newscast have higher ratings than one year earlier, this even though the people meters have buoyed the numbers of all the big networks. Only once did the rating approach the million mark, this was after the second night of the Don Cherry movie. All in all, a most dismal showing. At this point it is fair to question the changes made at The National and the people responsible for those changes. Anywhere else in the real world the people behind this sort of failure would be looking for new jobs


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (27 Apr 2010)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> . A bonus would be all those radio and television studios would be available for low costs for real local and regional broadcasters willing to attract a real audience:
> 
> http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=1393657&p=1



If you continued operating the studios as studios you would inherit the CBC union. Need I say more?


----------



## a_majoor (27 Apr 2010)

Not necessarily.

The studios and other property would be auctioned off to the highest bidder with the dissolution of Mothercorp. The staff would have been let go.

The new owners could do whatever they wanted, of course, but the ones who are interested in setting up their own stations using the salvaged studio and equipment would then be putting out hiring notices. Any ex union employee who demands union wages will discover lots of talented applicants fresh from community college (or even college and high school co-op students) looking for the same job but not demanding union wages. Many people might even have the talent to learn how to run these things themselves, saving lots of labour costs...


----------



## a_majoor (30 Apr 2010)

Well, for what it is worth:



> cbcinput@toronto.cbc.ca
> 
> Dear Thucydides,
> 
> ...



I would think the relationship between Mr Graves contributions to the Liberal party and the value  of the contracts EKOS got while they were in power should raise some eyebrows over the idea no relationships exist between the two, but maybe getting $6000 for every one you contribute is a coincidence?


----------



## Rifleman62 (1 May 2010)

From Small Dead Animals: http://smalldeadanimals.com/

May 1, 2010
Mansbridgio de' Medici: the declining years
On the Sunday, April 18th edition of The National, the teaser for an upcoming story consisted entirely of these twelve words: 

At the end of the day: Rahim Jaffer, Ms. Guergis - Cocaine? Hookers?
I'm not a fan of the CBC, obviously, but that is a good one. They've taken the sort of blithe, craven, entitled, almost joyous unaccountability that we associate with the Liberal remora of the Adscam years and applied it to journalism, and they've maintained this approach even as it all slowly unravels. Anyone who got all his news from The National could be forgiven for thinking that Canada had been on the right track under the Liberals, but that our government has been plagued by a series of mini-scandals and outrages ever since the Conservatives took power. The truth - that a solid, scandal-free government has taken us through an unprecedented international financial storm and left us in the best shape of any country in the world - would be supplanted by the CBC's hammering, partisan narrative that the Conservatives' reign has amounted to a tireless litany of fabricated scandals, of "damning evidence" and "new and explosive allegations" and "political firestorms." 

Defenders of the CBC continue to say there's no bias; what's unsettling is that they always say it with a straight face. Anyone who has actually watched the National over the last fifteen years - as opposed to just talking nonstop about how unbiased it is, or saying "naw, I don't watch it, there's too much Liberal bias" - knows full well that if a Shawinigate were to occur tomorrow, but with Stephen Harper in Jean Chretien's role, it would be a top-of-the-hour outrage for months, if not years. If you doubt it, ask yourself this: if the actions of a blowhard former Conservative MP, turfed years ago by his own party, who bragged about his ability to access government money in an attempt to make himself appear important, but in the end *received no money whatsoever* from the government, warrants speculative, innuendo-driven, top-of-the-hour, five-alarm, government-scandal coverage for weeks on end, how would The National even begin to cover a Conservative version of Shawinigate or Adscam? It's hard to even imagine. They'd surely need three new channels, twenty new reporters, an eighty-trailer mobile war room, and nightly special reports - "A nation in crisis! How did we get to this point?"

Now that the Conservatives are belatedly taking on the CBC, by focusing, as a start, on the CBC's presentation of EKOS pollster Frank Graves as a putatively unbiased, non-partisan expert on the Canadian political scene, the straight-faced crowd who defend the CBC are pretending - because that's what it is, pretending - that the Conservatives are only unhappy with Frank Graves' CBC appearances because he's a partisan:

"As for Conservatives being victims of CBC bias, Teneycke has a paying gig defending the Harper world view -- a task the former PMO communications director carries out with aplomb. Another former Harperite, Tom Flanagan, is also a frequent CBC guest...
It's a purposeful misdirection of the real issue. Cabinet ministers, MPs, Prime Ministers, and PMO spokesmen - partisans all - have appeared on The National for years without anyone saying "Hey! No fair! Finance Minister Ralph Goodale is talking there on the CBC, and he's a Liberal!" No, the real problem is that for years now the CBC has been trotting out anti-conservative partisans - including reporters and anchors - without identifying them as such. CBC defenders like Susan Riley (the source of the above quote) and Jane Taber - 

"Kory Teneycke, meanwhile, who most recently served as Stephen Harper’s communications director, is paid for his appearances on CBC in which he repeats Tory talking points and touts the Conservative line..."
- must surely be aware that every single time Teyneke and Flanagan appear on the CBC they are identified at the outset by their relationships with the Conservatives, just as they know that whenever someone from the Fraser Institute makes an appearance on the CBC, or is quoted by the CBC, the words right-wing think tank are inevitably tacked on, as if to warn viewers that what they're hearing is not the truth, but a purely partisan viewpoint. 

I'm sure they're also fully aware that, in stark contrast, those who promote the Lib/prog viewpoint are described as merely "experts" or "human rights lawyers" or "environmentalists" or an "analysts" or "U of T (X)ists." When, during the CBC's "war crimes!" spree, Michael Ignatieff's Harvard friend Amir Attaran - a highly partisan Liberal who, not two weeks before his appearance on CBC described Stephen Harper as a "dangerous ideologue" - was used by the CBC as the centerpiece for a top of the hour attack on the Conservatives - an attack that was all allegation and no fact - the CBC introduced him to the country as merely "a law professor who's been digging deep into the Afghan file" - a description that's true only in the sense that it would be true to say that "Attila the Hun, who enjoys horseback riding, travel and barbecuing, is an avid collector of Sofian knick-knacks..."

It's doubtful that even one CBC defender in this country honestly believes that the CBC would ever use a close buddy of Stephen Harper, without identifying him as such, as the centerpiece of a factless, innuendo-driven attack on the Liberals, and yet when the CBC uses anti-conservatives like Graves or Attaran in such a manner the CBC's defenders put on sunglasses, turn the other way, and whistle, all while claiming the moral high ground. That cheek, that unconscionable, unfathomable, entitled arrogance, will be the CBC's downfall. You'd think that the CBC workers who value the institution and who appreciate the network's historic role place in this country would have at least some sense of the enormous damage being caused to the institution by the minority of connected, entitled, unaccountable, shortsighted, arrogant OPG types, but apparently they don't. 

Too bad for the CBC, because the issue of The National's fraudulent, in-your-face, partisan journalism is not going away. The increasing anger over the sheer extent of the bias of the CBC's political coverage isn't driven by conservatives' animosity to Liberals but by the arrogant unaccountability of the producers and reporters at the CBC's news division, who continue to insult, on a daily basis, the millions of non-Liberal Canadian taxpayers who pay their salaries.


----------



## Kirkhill (1 May 2010)

Rifleman:

The problem is that everybody perceives themselves as reasonable, not to say rational, beings.  That is the sine qua non of being human. 

I know where I stand.  And I am a reasonable individual.... therefore all those that disagree with me a radical, argumentative, b*****ds that should never have been allowed to draw their first breath. 'Course now that they're here its probably just as well to corral the bu**ers and keep them isolated at places like the CBC and the Globe and Mail where they can talk amongst themselves.

Case in point?  I give you Lawrence Martin


----------



## Rifleman62 (9 May 2010)

Via Small Sead Animals: http://smalldeadanimals.com/

That's not a cookie jar. This isn't my hand. You're not standing there...

Several weeks ago the Conservatives complained to CBC Ombudsman Vince Carlin about the CBC's use of pollster Frank Graves as a putative non-partisan: "Why," the letter asked, "is a pollster who conducts polling for Canada's national broadcaster...also giving partisan advice to the Liberal Party of Canada?" 

The usual suspects shrugged off the charge. The network's editor-in-chief insisted that the CBC "is 'politically neutral' and 'scrupulously fair.'" EKOS denied that any of the data from any of the CBC-commissioned polls had been shared with the Liberals (notwithstanding, apparently, that fact that the results of one such CBC-commissioned poll induced Frank Graves to announce on air that the Liberals would do well to point out to Canadians that the choice between the the Liberals and the Conservatives was one of “cosmopolitanism versus parochialism, secularism versus moralism, Obama versus Palin, tolerance versus racism and homophobia, democracy versus autocracy.") 

In the aftermath of all the hoo-ha Graves dropped out of sight, only to reappear last Thursday on Power & Politics to discuss the results of a recent "viewer-inspired" poll "conducted for exclusive release by the CBC program Power & Politics." Seems a citizen viewer had come up with a thought-provoking suggestion for an EKOS poll: "It would be interesting to find out what issues are most important to women. What qualities they look for in a leader and conversely what issues/characteristics negatively affect their vote." Host Evan Solomon gushed "Frank, this is a fascinating poll, because it came based on a viewer question...a fascinating question, and very timely."

Why yes, yes, and what makes the poll even timelier and more fascinating is that the viewer who suggested the subject matter of the poll, a woman named Mary Pynenburg, just happens to be a former two-time candidate for the federal Liberals.

The reactions from the usual suspects show a Liberal-headed entitlement to passive-aggressive redirection. Jane Taber, for example, elevates apoplexy-inducing non-accountability into a perfected art form: she acknowledges that yes, Mary Pynenburg is a former Liberal candidate, and yes, Mary Pynenburg submitted the question that Frank Graves conducted a poll on, but she still manages to type out that "the Tories allege" that the poll "was inspired by a Liberal Party candidate." 

CBC/EKOS pollster Frank Graves: 

"I had no idea whatsoever who submitted the viewer-inspired question."
CBC spokesman Jeff Keay: 

"The question sent to us was reasonable, timely and relevant."
To sum up: a two-time Liberal candidate who the CBC describes as just a "viewer" - a concerned regular-Jane citizen, in effect - submits, to the CBC and EKOS, a poll question that just happens to be on a matter that the Liberals and the CBC have been attacking the Conservatives on (as evidenced by the fake "Abortion" issue as it pertains to foreign aid), and then the poll's results are announced coast-to-coast on the taxpayer-funded CBC, including the "finding" that "Conservative supporters had a higher than average propensity to say that women leaders would have a negative effect." 

"Timely and relevant" indeed.


----------



## a_majoor (11 May 2010)

Remember the assurances the CBC sent me that they are non partisan and unbiased?

http://canadaconservative.blogspot.com/2010/05/more-liberal-cbc-connections-exposed.html



> *More Liberal CBC connections EXPOSED*
> 
> And the plot thickens... will the folks at the CBC just finally admit that they goofed BIG TIME on this one?
> 
> ...


----------



## GAP (11 May 2010)

So.....score a hit by Mansbridge with his interview with a wide-eyed, tearful Guergis pleading her innocence, not knowing why she was turfed.....Does anyone really believe her, or is this just her being disingenious?....

 Guergis insists Jaffer didn't lobby 
Article Link
Daniel Leblanc

Ottawa — Globe and Mail Update Published on Monday, May. 10, 2010 5:37PM EDT Last updated on Monday, May. 10, 2010 10:36PM EDT

Former Conservative minister Helena Guergis insists her husband and former Conservative MP Rahim Jaffer did not act as an unregistered lobbyist in his contacts with federal officials in the Harper government.

Speaking out in a CBC interview on Monday night, Ms. Guergis said she is “hurt” by the way that she has been treated by Prime Minister Stephen Harper in the past few weeks, adding it might be related to his dislike for her husband.

“I'm hurt by the Prime Minister. I am hurt because I did consider him to be a friend as well, so I find that very hard to deal with,” she said.

Ms. Guergis said she received assurances from Mr. Jaffer that he did not conduct business out of her parliamentary office, and that he did not lobby his former government colleagues since he lost his seat in the 2008 election.

“He promised that he would never do that and cause a conflict for me,” she said. 


More on link


----------



## Rifleman62 (11 May 2010)

Helena Guergis is a victim of wife abuse. Tt takes other forms besides physical.

The media switched roles last week, starting to defend her against the evil, woman hater Harper. This falls in line with the Liberal tactics.

We need FOX. Thank gravy the National Post was not sold to Torstar Corporation.


----------



## a_majoor (14 May 2010)

The CBC will investigate itself "again".  :

http://ezralevant.com/2010/05/the-cbcs-leftwing-bias.html



> The CBC's left-wing bias
> By Ezra Levant on May 13, 2010 9:54 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)
> 
> I see that the CBC is going to investigate itself to determine whether it has a left-wing bias.
> ...


----------



## GAP (14 May 2010)

One news site underscored the title of the CBC bias with 

Up next, Col Sanders to study if chicken bad to eat 
http://www.bourque.com/


----------



## The Bread Guy (14 May 2010)

I await details about how people who've been aggrieved by CBC coverage might have public input...  Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.


----------



## a_majoor (15 May 2010)

Check who the speaker is and what year this took place...

http://chasingapplepie.blogspot.com/2010/05/cbc-bias-goes-waaay-back.html



> *CBC Bias Goes Waaay Back!*
> 
> Surprise,surprise!  CBC bias goes way back, back to the time of  Former Tory Prime Minister, Arthur Meighen.
> 
> ...


----------



## Rifleman62 (17 May 2010)

Add a comment: http://www.insidethecbc.com/is-the-cbc-biased/#respond


----------



## OldSolduer (18 May 2010)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Add a comment: http://www.insidethecbc.com/is-the-cbc-biased/#respond



I did. This is it:

You only have to watch a Montreal Canadiens playoff game to know CBC is biased.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (18 May 2010)

I read through about the first five pages of comments. If any were in defence of the CBC, I missed it.

The most used comment, in one form or another, to the question "Is the CBC Biased?" seems to be 'does a bear shyte in the woods?' followed by 'Is the Pope catholic?

It will be interesting to see what kind of spin the CBC puts on these comments to it's own poll, if indead it even considerers them, as a true commentary on their existence or whether they see it as an organized, right wing Harper\CPC led misuse of data.

Sell them off and quit using my tax money to support them.


----------



## Neill McKay (18 May 2010)

recceguy said:
			
		

> I read through about the first five pages of comments. If any were in defence of the CBC, I missed it.



You should look at the first two again.

Your signature block reveals your own bias, so your argument must be taken with an appropriate grain of salt.  But I have to say that in New Brunswick, where there is currently a Liberal government, an argument of anti-Liberal bias would be stronger that one of anti-Conservative bias.  Perhaps that's the key: the media see it as part of their role to hold the government up for inspection, warts and all.  Was it a CBC reporter who had the famous "just watch me" conversation with Pierre Trudeau?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (18 May 2010)

N. McKay said:
			
		

> You should look at the first two again.
> 
> Your signature block reveals your own bias, so your argument must be taken with an appropriate grain of salt.  But I have to say that in New Brunswick, where there is currently a Liberal government, an argument of anti-Liberal bias would be stronger that one of anti-Conservative bias.  Perhaps that's the key: the media see it as part of their role to hold the government up for inspection, warts and all.  Was it a CBC reporter who had the famous "just watch me" conversation with Pierre Trudeau?



I wasn't aware I was making an arguement. Simply speculating on an observation is all. It's an understandable mistake though, as most liebrals see overwhelming conspiracy behind every question or critisism of their narrow minded socialist manifesto. Not saying you're one of those mind you.


----------



## Neill McKay (18 May 2010)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Not saying you're one of those mind you.



Good!  By day I'm a mild-mannered civil servant so I emphatically do not have any political preference.  

But I do think the CBC is pretty good at its job -- which of course is much, much broader than news coverage of politics (or even news coverage as a whole).  If that entails shining a bright light on the government of the day then so much the better.  I would speculate that the Liberal government in power in New Brunswick doesn't love them any more than the Conservative one in Ottawa does.


----------



## Greymatters (18 May 2010)

Mid Aged Silverback said:
			
		

> You only have to watch a Montreal Canadiens playoff game to know CBC is biased.



I didnt see that - can you give an example(s)?


----------



## zipperhead_cop (18 May 2010)

N. McKay said:
			
		

> But I do think the CBC is pretty good at its job



Then you are in the small percentile of Canadians that thinks so, given their viewing choices.  

I'm with Recceguy.  Auction them off and stop wasting my money.


----------



## KJK (18 May 2010)

Recceguy and ZC, add me to the list in favor of an auctions and no more subsidies.

KJK


----------



## Journeyman (18 May 2010)

CBC hasn't been a source of legitimate news or journalism since they started believing that producing and commenting on semi-daily opinion polls was "news."
 :


Polls are dubious at the best of times; reading CBC's comments on those polls takes that down to a credibility of 0.01......+/- 2.0....19 times out of 20....except for comments from any Toronto-based Starbucks internet site....uh, on Thursdays.....unless the comment is by a SME (whose expertise based _solely_ upon being posted into a SME line-serial)......damn these caveats; I feel like a German or a Frenchman in RC(N).....


----------



## ModlrMike (2 Jun 2010)

No surprise here:

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/MediaNews/2010/05/19/14010626.html


----------



## The Bread Guy (4 Jun 2010)

The message:  CBC, like other media, is there to help get information Canadians need to know out there.

The reality:  Except when it comes to information about the CBC - this  from the Canadian Press:


> The information commissioner of Canada has again smacked the CBC for stonewalling requests under the access-to-information law.
> 
> In her 2009-2010 annual report released Thursday, Suzanne Legault said the public broadcaster has wrongly withheld information, taken too long to respond to some requests and tried to overcharge on some files.
> 
> ...


----------



## GAP (4 Jun 2010)

Also this from last night's National. 

Those ships that were intercepted off Israel? Well, it seems that only the Israeli's have released video, none of the activists groups, and guess what it shows....it was fun watching CBC backpeddling in a "Questioning" manner....


----------



## Rifleman62 (25 Jun 2010)

As others have commented, buried in this column (see bold text), the CBC is at it again. Holding an interview conducted in the Spring of this year, to the day before the Chinese President arrives in Canada for a before the G20 meeting with the PM. Canadian"journalism" at it's best.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/csis-directors-future-in-doubt-as-politicians-decry-remarks/article1615583/

CSIS director’s future in doubt as politicians decry remarks 

Spy chief’s statement that lawmakers are beholden to foreign states draws ire of B.C. Premier

From Thursday's Globe and Mail 
Published on Wednesday, Jun. 23, 2010 11:12PM EDT

Last updated on Thursday, Jun. 24, 2010 11:43AM EDT

Canada’s outspoken spy chief has unleashed a political furor by saying that a number of politicians are influenced by foreign states, comments that left his critics wondering whether he will survive as head of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service. 

Calling the charges by Richard Fadden “unprecedented and completely unprofessional,” B.C Premier Gordon Campbell said the spy agency smeared lawmakers as beholden to foreign governments. “To cast a shadow of doubt across municipal politicians or provincial cabinet ministers without so much as a shred of substantial evidence I have seen, or anyone else has seen, is simply not acceptable in Canada,” Mr. Campbell said Wednesday. 

The Ontario and Saskatchewan Premiers, and several Western Canadian mayors, uttered similar criticisms. 

The CSIS director made televised comments on CBC Tuesday, saying that two unnamed provincial cabinet ministers and a number of other government officials and employees are under the influence of foreign countries. 

The Fadden controversy erupted during a week when the world’s eyes are on Canada for the G8 and G20 summits, and as Prime Minister Stephen Harper flew to Toronto to apologize for CSIS-RCMP failings on the 25th anniversary of Canada’s greatest terrorist attack. Last week, a judge recommended sweeping security changes, after faulting CSIS and other agencies for bungling the probe into the 1985 Air India bombings. 

It also occurred as Chinese President Hu Jintao arrived in Ontario Wednesday to prepare for the G20 summit. Mr. Hu was accompanied by one of the highest-level delegations ever to come to Canada, which includes four deputy premiers and five ministers. 

In the CBC interview broadcast Tuesday night, Mr. Fadden suggested that hostile foreign entities – possibly Chinese ones – had infiltrated Canadian politics. 

A career mandarin appointed to run Canada’s spy agency a year ago, Mr. Fadden made his media debut by talking about how foreign interference was a real problem. He said he had advised Ottawa’s “centre” of certain problematic politicians. 

He backtracked in a written clarification Wednesday. “I have not apprised the Privy Council Office of the cases I mentioned in the interview on CBC,” he said, adding that “CSIS has not deemed the cases to be of sufficient concern to bring them to the attention of provincial authorities.” 

The retreat led MP Mark Holland, Liberal national-security critic, to say that if what Mr. Fadden has said is true about not advising his political masters, “then he’s got to go and he has to go immediately.” University of Toronto professor Wesley Wark, a frequent commentator on national security, called the remarks “a grievous misjudgment and a firing offence.” 

A spokesman for the Prime Minister said no one has requested any resignation. And some insiders argue Mr. Fadden merely expressed – albeit more pointedly – what has worried CSIS for years. “I was surprised to hear his comments – not what he said, but that he said it,” said Robert Simmonds, past RCMP commissioner. 

*The timing of the CBC interview was not Mr. Fadden’s choice. This spring, CBC approached him to repeat remarks he had made at a private, but videotaped, speech at the Royal Canadian Military Institute. The public broadcaster kept the interview in its back pocket until it broadcast the exclusive this week*

Mr. Fadden arrived at CSIS with an eye to reshaping the public debate on national security. He once said Canadians “would all benefit from a more nuanced debate worthy of a G8 country.” 



His remarks clearly stunned municipal and provincial politicians and detracted from the federal focus on the summits. The international implications are not yet known. In the absence of any discernible protest from the Chinese, the government appears intent on ignoring Mr. Fadden’s comments and hoping that the controversy fades away. 

On Wednesday, however, a newspaper tied to a Chinese dissident group, the Falun Gong, released an audiotape alleging Chinese embassy officials are paying pro-China protesters to shout down any anti-Beijing criticisms uttered. Such activities cause CSIS worries, given its mandate to guard against foreign powers who seek to clandestinely steal secrets, quell dissent, or influence politics. 

Unlike his predecessors, Mr. Fadden made the case openly. “We’re in fact a bit worried in a couple of provinces that we have an indication there are some political figures who have developed quite an attachment to foreign countries,” he told the CBC.


----------



## The Bread Guy (25 Jun 2010)

CBC says the interview was not in the can, it was done Monday of this week:
http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/threads/94892/post-949092.html#msg949092
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/06/24/f-vp-stewart.html


----------



## Rifleman62 (25 Jun 2010)

Possibly, if you believe the CBC. Why doesn't someone ask Fadden?

The point is that the item was brought up the list (manufactured) on a timeline that was bound to cause embarrassment/controversy to the visit of the Chinese President, add reinforcement to Iggy's new remarks re China/The PM.

22 Jun 10: Iggy - “My visit to China will affirm the Liberal vision for restoring Canada’s global leadership, where real partnerships with China are nurtured through constant, constructive engagement,” Mr. Ignatieff said. “While Stephen Harper neglected China, a future Liberal government will leverage our relationships with China by partnering with business and government, colleges and universities, civil society organizations and private citizens.”

24 Jin 10: LPC Press Release - Liberal MPs will request the recall of Parliament’s Public Safety and National Security committee to get answers about the Prime Ministers’ Office role in the highly unusual timing of troubling public accusations made by the Director of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS).

25 Jun 10: LPC Press Release - Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff met today with Chinese President Hu Jintao in advance of the President`s participation in the G20 summit in Toronto. “I spoke about building on the longstanding tradition of sustained, responsible engagement with China established by my Liberal predecessors, Prime Ministers Pierre Trudeau, Jean Chretien and Paul Martin. That engagement has served the interests of both countries over the years.”


----------



## The Bread Guy (25 Jun 2010)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Possibly, if you believe the CBC. Why doesn't someone ask Fadden?


I'm as skeptical about mainstream media as the next guy, but if the int'view was done a long time ago, I'd like to think that Fadden/CSIS would have said so in their statement.


----------



## Kirkhill (8 Jul 2010)

Interesting article from a journalism prof.



> ....
> Ryerson University professors Marsha Barber and Ann Rauhala explored the demographic and political leanings of Canada's television news directors. The results of their survey were published in 2005 in the Canadian Journal of Communication. The researchers found that the news directors, whom they describe as *the people "with the most direct responsibility for programming the news on any given day," were more politically and socially liberal than the rest of the Canadian population*. Broken down by network, *those working for the CBC were the most left-leaning*. Barber and Rauhala's findings echo researchers David Pritchard and Florian Sauvageau's survey results from years earlier. Regarding *Canadian TV journalists*, they found that most *felt the news organizations they worked for were "slightly left of centre" when it came to political outlook while they themselves were ideologically more left-leaning than their employers.*
> 
> ....
> ...


----------



## PegcityNavy (8 Jul 2010)

CBC makes me sick, if the Conservatives win a majority the first thing they should do is dismantle it. One billion dollars a year could pay for alot.


----------



## Kirkhill (8 Jul 2010)

Pegcity said:
			
		

> CBC makes me sick, if the Conservatives win a majority the first thing they should do is dismantle it. One billion dollars a year could pay for alot.



Yup.  A G20 summit a year.


----------



## a_majoor (8 Jul 2010)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Yup.  A G20 summit a year.



NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!


----------



## Danjanou (9 Jul 2010)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!



Relax it won't be in TO every year. We'll space them out to a different province each year. That way everyone should get to participate in an Operation Goat Rodeo at least once in their military career and possibly twice. hey maybe you could bars for the GGCVSM for each G20 8)


----------



## MGB (22 Jul 2010)

While we're on the subject...

*Surprise! CBC report lauds CBC*

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Politics/2010/07/21/14783966.html


----------



## old medic (16 Sep 2010)

Slimeball cons CBC

No evidence he’s being held captive at Somali airport
By TOM BRODBECK, Winnipeg Sun
15 September 2010

http://www.winnipegsun.com/news/columnists/tom_brodbeck/2010/09/15/15366966.html



> The next time the CBC gets a phone call from a repeat, violent refugee offender who’s been deported to Somalia and who claims he’s being held captive at an airport by armed extremists, they’ll probably think twice before running a story about it.
> 
> Looks like our public broadcaster got duped this week by convicted criminal and known con artist Mohamed Said Jama.
> 
> ...









http://www.cbc.ca/canada/manitoba/story/2010/09/15/mb-jama-somalia-ransom-shooting-winnipeg.html


----------



## Hawk (16 Sep 2010)

I just went into CBC site to see if they had any comments. I have no idea what made me think they'd ever recant any of the nonsense stories they print! Its all over the internet, and they seem to be sticking to their story. They're such a joke! Unfortunately, a lot of people think it must be gospel if CBC prints it.

Hawk


----------



## jollyjacktar (16 Sep 2010)

Haha, and here I thought it might be (thread title wise) because the local CBC radio afternoon drive home show has been having a former well known Political ( who was famously know for insisting he was "entitled to my entitlements" ) as a guest giving advise on how to negotiate.  The listeners have been going off the deep end with the selection of this guy and feel that he is.... well, a slimeball.  The host's response was that he was perfect as he negotiated a "Mint" from the Mint on leaving.

Back on thread.  It's good to see that Jama has been shown the door, doesn't happen often enough with some of the turds that sneak into the country.  CBC however can't resist running with the bit between their teeth can they.  

Just wait and see if they can't somehow try connect the CF into causing his predicament.  Seems  as if they are grasping a any straw to punch the CF as of late.


----------



## old medic (19 Sep 2010)

Refugee’s safety not our problem
By TOM BRODBECK, Winnipeg Sun
Last Updated: September 18, 2010 10:04pm

http://www.winnipegsun.com/news/columnists/tom_brodbeck/2010/09/18/15399746.html



> My sources tell me Mohamed Jama is sitting comfortably in a hotel in Bosaso, Somalia right now. No extremists holding him up at gunpoint at the inn, nor in a government-chartered plane on the tarmac of the local airport.
> 
> That despite what the CBC was reporting all week.
> 
> ...


----------



## old medic (22 Sep 2010)

CBC gun registry report ripped
By ALTHIA RAJ, Parliamentary Bureau 
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Politics/2010/09/21/15430046.html



> OTTAWA — The Conservative Party is alleging the CBC purposefully misled viewers by airing a report that, it said, suggests the National Rifle Association was helping them abolish the long-gun registry.
> 
> Jenni Byrne, the party’s head of political operations, wrote CBC Ombudsman Vince Carlin last week over what she said was concern by the public broadcaster’s “blatant agenda-driven reporting."
> 
> ...


----------



## Fishbone Jones (28 Sep 2010)

Currently watching the CBC and the press fawning, idolizing and performing symbolic fellatio on the corpse of Trudeau on the tenth anniversary of his death. 

I have to change the channel and go puke.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (29 Sep 2010)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Currently watching the CBC and the press fawning, idolizing and performing symbolic fellatio on the corpse of Trudeau on the tenth anniversary of his death.
> 
> I have to change the channel and go puke.



Yeah, but at least he's dead.


----------



## The Bread Guy (7 Oct 2010)

recceguy said:
			
		

> It will be interesting to see what kind of spin the CBC puts on these comments to it's own poll, if indead it even considerers them, as a true commentary on their existence or whether they see it as an organized, right wing Harper\CPC led misuse of data.


Wait no longer!


> CBC News has now completed its comprehensive News Balance Study.
> 
> In June, we released the interim results and I explained then in some detail why we think it's important to evaluate the journalism we do and the way we do it.
> 
> ...


More on the GM's summary here, the full bias report here (PDF)

_- edited to fix link -_


----------



## Edward Campbell (7 Oct 2010)

_*Balance*_ is most news reporting is nothing more than an attempt to manufacture controversy in order to gain audience share.

_Balanced_ 'journalism' became popular on TV news when John McLaughlin began to replace boring "talking heads" with more exciting "shouting heads" on TV over 30 years ago. Now partisan political operators - like Scott Reid here in Canada and Donna Brazile in the USA are mainstays on "news" broadcasts because they will, reliably, make some sparks fly, on even the most innocuous issue, and, thereby, sell more advertising time. Of course they are accompanied by their Conservative and Republican and NDP and Labour counterparts on news broadcasts all over the English speaking world - even on CCTV's English service.

Even worse than the political operators are the incessant panels of MPs who 'debate' _issues_ on so-called news shows. Both the CBC and CTV are equally guilty of using these drones to fill airtime when there is absolutely nothing to say about a topic.

Most real news requires a simple reporting of facts: to inform Canadians. Most broadcasters have, for 25+ years, totally ignored that function as they try to sell our 'eyeballs' to their sponsors by manufacturing controversy which we appear to lap up, à la Pavlov’s dogs.


----------



## a_majoor (22 Mar 2011)

There may be hope after all; NPR has repeatedly crossed the boundaries and now Democrat lawmakers have pretty much openly stated they support and fund NPR as their propaganda arm. Canadians see the CBC in much the same way (based on the minuscule numbers of viewers and listeners), how long for political support for defunding to finally emerge?

http://hotair.com/archives/2011/03/21/juan-williams-defund-npr/



> *Juan Williams: Defund NPR*
> 
> posted at 8:48 am on March 21, 2011 by Ed Morrissey
> 
> ...


----------



## Neill McKay (22 Mar 2011)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> (based on the minuscule numbers of viewers and listeners),



Do you have anything to back that up?


----------



## Strike (22 Mar 2011)

N. McKay said:
			
		

> Do you have anything to back that up?



I believe that comment was meant to be tongue in cheek.


----------



## Edward Campbell (22 Mar 2011)

N. McKay said:
			
		

> Do you have anything to back that up?




Try this from a CBC friend.


----------



## The Bread Guy (22 Mar 2011)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Try this from a CBC friend.


Raw numbers alone don't tell the whole story.  Here in Thunder Bay, when two private radio stations started working out of the same building, creating a virtual monopoly on broadcast info outside of the CBC, nobody complained (apart from 1 or 2 letters to the editor).  When about 1/3 of a private TV & radio's staff were laid off, making community-based content harder to come by, nobody complained.  When there was a hint that CBC would close it's Thunder Bay radio outlet, I saw 200 people hit the streets to protest for a CBC executive visiting.  I also suspect those who do listen would be very active about any possible cuts or privatization.


----------



## a_majoor (23 Mar 2011)

For advertisers and content providers, raw numbers are EVERYTHING. Spending a billion taxpayer dollars to satisfy 5 to 7% of the national audience is a travesty.

For the ideal solution let the 200 protesters pay for the CBC out of their own pockets as a specialty channel that they can order like HBO or Sirius/XM. They get what they want, and the other 93% of the Canadian public can spend their information and entertainment dollars on what _they_ want.


----------



## a_majoor (31 Mar 2011)

Surprise, surprise....

http://hatrockscave.blogspot.com/2011/03/cbc-political-compass-is-bs.html



> *CBC Vote Compass is BS*
> 
> Hundreds of thousands of Canadians have been using CBC's Vote Compass to determine which party closely aligns with their views and opinions.
> 
> ...



And watch it done on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JNU3sL8T8RI&feature=player_embedded


----------



## Rifleman62 (4 Apr 2011)

http://www.canada.com/Green+platform+includes+Radio+Canada/4556493/story.html

*Green platform includes $450 M for CBC, Radio-Canada*

Cindy E. Harnett, Postmedia News April 4, 2011 2:44 PM

VICTORIA — The day before her party heads to court to fight for a spot in the federal leaders' debate, Green party leader Elizabeth May pledged $450 million in funding for the CBC if her party is elected.

The CBC and its French counterpart, Radio-Canada, are part of the broadcast consortium — which also includes CTV, Global and TVA — that decided to exclude May from the televised debates to be held April 12 in English and April 14 in French.

The party filed its claim in the Federal Court of Appeal; on Tuesday, party lawyer Peter Rosenthal will be in court in Ottawa to try to set a date to argue the case in advance of the debates which are being held in the leadup to the May 2 election.

The Greens are requesting a judicial review of CRTC regulations that say Canadian broadcasters are under no obligation to include all leaders in the debate, said Kieran Green, the party's director of communications.

The consortium said in a statement last week that the decision to exclude May was "based on the application of journalistic principles, and the fact that the Green party has never elected a member to Parliament."

In a campaign stop outside the CBC Radio studios in downtown Victoria on Monday morning, May said her party would provide the national broadcaster with stable base funding so it can continue to provide Canadian programming in both English and French.

"Concentration in Canadian media, corporate control of news content, slashing of local news content and the slow funding starvation of our national broadcaster — these are the issues the corporate TV executives would rather not see come up in this election. These are issues Canadians will not hear discussed if I am excluded from the national leaders debate," May said.

The Green platform, which is set to be released later this week, calls for a three-year investment in the CBC and Radio-Canada: $100 million in 2011-12, $150 million in 2012-13 and $200 million in 2013-14.

While the Greens are running candidates across the country, May is sticking close to Vancouver Island — the party's plan is to focus on Saanich-Gulf Islands, where May is trying to become the party's first elected MP. She faces an uphill battle in a riding long held by incumbent Conservative cabinet minister Gary Lunn. Other candidates include Liberal Renee Hetherington and the NDP's Edith Loring-Kuhanga.
© Copyright (c) The Victoria Times Colonist


----------



## ModlrMike (4 Apr 2011)

That doesn't sound anything like a bribe.  :facepalm:


----------



## GAP (4 Apr 2011)

In this election, and in the last, May ran against incumbents she is most likely to lose to.........wonder why.......I wonder if the leader of the greens is able to saw off a paycheque as leader, but never have to do anything, except the occasional election...


----------



## Jed (4 Apr 2011)

GAP said:
			
		

> In this election, and in the last, May ran against incumbents she is most likely to lose to.........wonder why.......I wonder if the leader of the greens is able to saw off a paycheque as leader, but never have to do anything, except the occasional election...


So is that possible? All those Green Party donations and the taxpayer financed credits used primarily for her and her staff's wages?


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (4 Apr 2011)

Nobody has ever accused Greens of all stripes with being anything other than capitalists.  The more sensational the story, the louder the cash register rings.  I think the true volunteers are scarce.


----------



## Rifleman62 (5 Apr 2011)

Ah, the good old G & M. Not a liberal message in their organization.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/sun-burns-cbc-in-bid-to-hype-tabloid-tv/article1970923/

*Sun burns CBC in bid to hype tabloid TV*

From Tuesday's Globe and Mail - updated Apr. 05, 2011- Simon Houpt

Executives at the *right-wing news chain Sun Media* may not want to hear this, but they have a lot in common with Michael Ignatieff. Like the Liberal Leader, they’re throwing mud and schoolyard taunts at a dominant player, using the platform of the federal election to whip up enthusiasm for their message – and their new medium.

Since the writ was dropped 10 days ago, the Sun chain of newspapers has run more than half a dozen articles accusing the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation of political bias, effectively running parallel commercial and ideological campaigns.

The attacks are helping to fuel the chain’s ongoing marketing campaign for the April 18 launch of Sun TV, which is promising “Hard News and Straight Talk.”

Last Wednesday, Sun papers across the country proclaimed on their cover: “CBC Full of Grit,” pointing to an inside story that attacked an online election engagement tool sponsored by CBC, saying it improperly told some people their political leanings made them natural Liberal voters. Two days later, the Sun reported that Peter Loewen, a professor who helped develop the tool, had worked on Michael Ignatieff’s first Liberal leadership campaign. Each news report was accompanied by an editorial or op-ed decrying the corporation’s perceived bias. Then on Monday, the Sun hit the CBC again, running a story about the criminal prosecution filed against the broadcaster by the fashion designer Peter Nygard.

The attacks are evidently unprecedented in Canadian election history. “I’ve been looking at media coverage of elections since the sixties, and I don’t remember anything like this,” said Fred Fletcher, a professor emeritus of communication studies and political science at York University.
*
As a public broadcaster, the CBC says it goes to extraordinary lengths to ensure its journalism is free of bias, hiring the Toronto media analysis company Cormex Research to review its broadcasts and Internet offerings, and submit regular reports to network executives.*

*As a private enterprise, Sun Media has no such restrictions: Indeed, its biases are a part of its appeal*.

Now the CBC is claiming those biases may be getting the better of the story. On Monday afternoon, the CBC released a letter it had sent the Sun to complain about its coverage over the Vote Compass issue. “The Sun had information that Peter Loewen also worked for Tom Flanagan during Stephen Harper’s 2004 leadership campaign and later for Nova Scotia Progressive Conservative leadership candidate Bill Black, but chose not to share that information with its readers,” read the letter. “In fact, Mr. Flanagan is on record noting that assistant professor Loewen is an outstanding researcher without an ounce of partisan in him.”

On Monday afternoon I reached out to the Toronto Sun to discuss the strategy behind its editorial policy. I explained in an e-mail to editor-in-chief James Wallace that, while the Sun has often made sport of kicking the CBC, “with the imminent launch of Sun TV and the current election campaign, there seems to be a new spring in your step.”

Though it is a subsidiary of the multi-billion-dollar Quebecor Inc., the Sun cultivates an image of blue-collar scrapper, eager to drop the gloves at a moment’s notice. Mr. Wallace promised that someone would get back to me shortly. Ninety minutes later, after I prodded him again, he’d apparently had a change of heart: “Hi Simon,” he said. “We're happy to let our stories speak for themselves. Cheers.”


----------



## Neill McKay (5 Apr 2011)

"Yes, Prime Minister" fans know what kind of people read the Sun!  ;D


----------



## Kalatzi (5 Apr 2011)

I am proud to present an ideal format for  unbiased political reporting

The ideal political taking heads Nibu and Tibu ;D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Svq8yd99AzE


----------



## Kalatzi (5 Apr 2011)

And here is an example of very biased reporting - just for comparison

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B3n466POrIE&NR=1


----------



## Edward Campbell (7 Apr 2011)

This, reproduced under the fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _Ottawa Citizen_, might be relevant:

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Vaderization+Harper/4572593/story.html


> The Vaderization of Harper
> 
> BY KATE HEARTFIELD, OTTAWA CITIZEN
> 
> ...




It is often said that much of the media is pro-Liberal. Some of it is, some of it is pro-NDP and some is actually pro-Conservative (I’m ignoring the French language media and its, more complex, biases.) But I think that, since the 1960s, most journalists and most ‘journals’ – including TV news programmes – have, consciously and even proudly self identified as anti-conservative. Most of those journalists would call themselves liberals – using the bastardized, incorrect meaning of that world invented by stupid and lazy right wing commentators and journalists (like conservative “hero” William F Buckley) back in the 1960s. 

The problem isn’t bias, in my view, it is a herd mentality and intellectual shallowness.


----------



## Rifleman62 (7 Apr 2011)

An update from a earlier post:* Sun burns CBC in bid to hype tabloid TV
*
The Blog has links embedded. See link. Interesting info on the CBC near the end. 

All tied in: background of  Vote Compass, SUN News TV, the "neutral" Hill media, Stephen Staples @ $1000 per appearance, etc.

As someone wrote, as a letter to the Editor of the Halifax Chronicle:

*“When Liberal- friendly columnists posing as reporters base their stories  on what fellow Liberal- friendly commentators have to say on political TV  shows hosted by Liberal friendly TV talk show hosts pretending to be unbiased commentators, you have to know the fix is in."*

http://blogs.canoe.ca/lilleyspad/

*Andrew Potter doesn’t know squat*

brian.lilley - April 6th, 2011

Andrew Potter, writer and thinker. Not a prostitute, intellectual or otherwise.

I am an intellectual prostitute. I know this because Andrew Potter told me so and if anyone knows intellectual prostitutes it’s Andrew Potter.

Andrew who?

For those of you unfamiliar with Potter he is, “a Canadian philosopher, author, and magazine columnist.” According to his Wikipedia entry, which he surely wrote himself, Potter has an academic background in “metaphysics and political philosophy, post-secondary educational policy, branding, consumerism and popular culture. He maintains an interest in technology and the future of the news media.”

Ring any bells?

You might have read him in your dentist’s office if you picked up Macleans where he supposedly has a column or in Canadian Business where he writes stuff but otherwise…..meh.

Oh, and he wrote a book called Authenticity Hoax, which remarkably is a book on our culture and not his autobiography.

Anyway, Potter is upset because I wrote an article that linked one of his friends to the CBC Vote Compass in a way he didn’t like. In the article I pointed out that Peter Loewen, a University of Toronto political science professor, is part of CBC’s Vote Compass.

Of course I didn’t point this out to promote CBC’s “tool.” The state broadcaster is doing plenty of promotion on their own. What was also of interest was part of Loewen’s past.

Loewen was a policy advisor on Michael Ignatieff’s failed 2006 Liberal leadership campaign.

Cue Potter’s outrage!

In addition to being upset that I wrote a story critical of one his pals, Potter claims that I engaged in a “deliberate withholding of facts.”

“As Peter Loewen himself told Lilley when Lilley interviewed him for his March 31 story, Loewen did the same sort of work for Harper in 2004 that he later did for Ignatieff. Loewen was also a staffer for a  Nova Scotia Progressive Conservative leadership candidate in 2005. And he once donated money to Pierre Poilievre’s nomination campaign.”

Sounds like I did something wrong here. Potter tells me I’ve been a bad, bad boy.

“This information was available to Brian Lilley, his editor, and to Ezra Levant. It is thoroughly despicable that it was not included in the stories that were published.”

Loewen never told me that he “did the same sort of work for Harper in 2004 that he later did for Ignatieff.” What he did say is that he “did some work” for Flanagan.

Well, we checked with Flanagan, actually he emailed us to defend Loewen ahead of us contacting him and here’s what he said.

“Peter didn’t work for me in the sense of being a paid employee, but I shared data and discussed things with him.  I have no doubts about his objectivity.  I’d hate to see a promising young guy like him become roadkill on the media highway.”

So while it could have been nice to include the line about Flanagan defending Loewen’s objectivity, to do so would have required me pointing out that Flanagan denied the young academic worked for him.

Just for the record, there were other emails about this. Flanagan denied Loewen worked for him or the Harper campaign. Here’s an email from Flanagan on April 5th, after The Globe chimed in on this.

“The story has gotten a little distorted, I think.  He was never on my payroll.  I think maybe five years ago I sent him some data when we were emailing back and forth about a research project of his.  I really can’t recall the details.”

And then again on April 6th after Macleans repeated the CBC claim that Loewen had worked on the Harper campaign.

“He was not a paid employee of the national campaign in 2004.  I don’t know what he may have done in a local campaign.  After the campaign, I had a lengthy email correspondence with him about some research he was doing, and I think we shared some data.”

I normally wouldn’t share private emails, especially ones that I wasn’t even a part of, but someone else has released some of this and is using it to claim I left out information.

Again, if I had included the claim that Loewen had worked for Flanagan, now exaggerated by CBC and his supporters to say he worked on the Harper campaign, I would have had to have included Flanagan’s denial and essentially called Loewen a liar.

So what about the other info?

Loewen did tell me he worked on Bill Black’s bid for the leadership of the Progressive Conservative Party in Nova Scotia. Really that’s not the point here. The story was about someone connected to a controversial voting guide that had links to one of the leaders in a federal election. In addition, provincial and federal parties don’t always match up, just look at Liberals in BC.

It is also true that Loewen once gave $50, that’s what he told me, to Pierre Poilievre’s nomination race in 2004. The young would-be MP is an old roommate of Poilievre’s. My old roommate is a big Liberal who I have helped with campaigns, including helping to raise far in excess of $50. I was helping a friend back then and that’s what Loewen was doing.

I included the most pertinent connection to the Tories there was. Loewen told me he gave $100 to attend a fundraiser for Stephen Harper to hear the Conservative leader speak. I also included Loewen saying he had no role in the placement of the parties and that he was not biased.

It appears Potter, CBC and others would have preferred I remain silent on this issue but something tells me no one would have been silent if it was Ian Brodie, the academic turned Harper chief of staff, who was working on Vote Compass.

I’ve now written about twice as many words to explain my story as I did in telling it. I shouldn’t have to do this, other media outlets don’t attack the journalism of their competitors the way they attack Sun Media.

There are a couple of simple reasons for this.

First we are about to launch Sun News Network. Lots of people don’t like that. We promise to be different, to steal away part of their audience and they were quite comfy with the way things were before we came along.

Second, I’ve been pretty *active in the pages of all our papers in writing about CBC and their dismal record in telling us where they spend the $1.1 billion tax dollars that they receive from us each year. Journalists, especially elite ones like Potter or those in the Press Gallery, LOVE CBC. And I mean LOVE.*

*In my experience, when a reporter on Parliament Hill says they saw something on the news or heard it on the radio they are inevitably talking about CBC. Peter Mansbridge may host the third most watched national newscast but for Hill people he’s still number one!*

*It is important to note that CBC probably has about one-third of the memberships in the Parliamentary Press Gallery.* Then there are all the other reporters. *When you see a reporter from another media outlet on CBC giving their analysis, just remember they are not there for free.
*
*CBC pays anywhere from $200 an appearance for these extra reporters and analysts to close to $1,000 per appearance.
**
Your tax dollars buying up the gallery.*

*If you’ve ever wondered why there are not more stories on CBC and how they spend your money, you now know the answer. It wouldn’t do to bite the hand feeding you.
*
I’d stick up for Ezra Levant, my fellow intellectual prostitute, but Ezra’s already done pretty well himself.


----------



## a_majoor (9 Apr 2011)

Too bad the NP wasn't faster getting this out, will be interesting to see if it has built in bias:

http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/04/05/election-2011-help-your-favourite-party-seize-control-with-geopollster-and-the-national-post/



> *Election 2011: Help your favourite party seize control with GeoPollster and Foursquare*
> 
> Chris Boutet  Apr 5, 2011 – 4:15 PM ET | Last Updated: Apr 6, 2011 6:55 PM ET
> 
> ...


----------



## Journeyman (9 Apr 2011)

> Of course this is not a scientific poll and does not purport to truly reflect the broad views of Canadians.


You think?  :

It doesn't "truly" reflect _anything_ of value....except perhaps how many times NDP supporters go to Starbucks, or Bloc fans use Cafe Morgan. 

If only we had a literate electorate, this, and the CBC's "Vote Liberal" spam survey, wouldn't get any coverage


----------



## a_majoor (25 Apr 2011)

The CBC is the biggest offender, and because they are funded by tax dollars this is totally unacceptable. If a private network or organization wants to display bias, at least I don't have to support them by purchasing their product or viewing their shows:

http://cruxofthematterinfo.wordpress.com/2011/04/25/biggest-loser-in-election-2011-media-coverage-will-be-truth/



> *Biggest loser in election 2011 media coverage will be “truth”*
> APRIL 25, 2011 BY SANDY  0 COMMENTS
> 
> There is a very well-known phrase – truth is the first casualty of war. Well, given what I have seen and heard during this Canadian federal election campaign, I would have to say that truth was the first casualty of mainstream media election coverage, particularly that provided by the state sponsored CBC, as well as the private CTV and, to a lesser extent, Global and CPAC.
> ...


----------



## GAP (25 Apr 2011)

Listening to Dave Rutherford.....one caller commented on Robert Fife CTV commenting that "We're gonna get him" in one of his commentaries....not sure of what it was specifically in reference to about the CPC, but it's out there....


----------



## Kirkhill (25 Apr 2011)

Perhaps This GAP  Scroll down to comment from Peterb.

So far unsubstantiated.



> I don't want to be an alarmist, but inadvertently, there was something very disturbing, told Canadians on the CTV News Network Saturday morning, that should be of great concern about the neutrality, impartiality and the role of some members of the media in this election campaign.
> In reporting about a Harper rally this morning, and the questioning of the Prime Minister, Robert Fife told Jackie Milczarek "We'll get him".
> This conjures up a picture of some sort of conspiracy by some members of the media, to undermine or carry out some subversive attack in the dying days of Harper's campaign, to influence the results of this election or worse - certainly not the role of a supposedly impartial media.
> I think it behooves Robert Fife and CTV, to make public who all constitites the "we", because otherwise, this is a suspicion and smear of other members of the media who are innocent , professional and not deserving of this accusation of unprofessional conduct.
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (25 Apr 2011)

It, the same message, is making the rounds on e.g. The Blogging Tories and MacLeans (scroll down to PeterB's comment) and several other blogs.


----------



## ModlrMike (25 Apr 2011)

A further example of media bias, this time from canada.com. A clear attempt to make a positive story a negative.

Conservatives remain on defensive as polls slip into their favour
By Mark Kennedy, Andrew Mayeda, Althia Raj and Mike De Souza, Postmedia News April 21, 2011

Link

Read the article and tell me if you can reconcile the headline with the content. I sure can't. I can't see how a rise in the polls puts one on the defensive. Nor can I understand the context of the headline... it's contradictory to say the least.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (25 Apr 2011)

*IF* Harper gets a substantial majority and *IF* the groundswell across the country is clearly in favour, how much trouble would it be to pull the plug on the CBC and privatize it?

We'd, of course, have all the artsy farsty types that make their living off bad movies and miniseries, supported by our tax dollars and the usual, 'Harper is evil' cabal.

Seriously though, how much trouble would it be to split them off from the radio section and sell them off?


----------



## Edward Campbell (25 Apr 2011)

recceguy said:
			
		

> *IF* Harper gets a substantial majority and *IF* the groundswell across the country is clearly in favour, how much trouble would it be to pull the plug on the CBC and privatize it?
> 
> We'd, of course, have all the artsy farsty types that make their living off bad movies and miniseries, supported by our tax dollars and the usual, 'Harper is evil' cabal.
> 
> Seriously though, how much trouble would it be to split them off from the radio section and sell them off?




Not a *HUGE* problem if it is done very quickly and is done a part of a larger "sell off" of government _'stuff'_ that includes, just for the sake of argument, Defence Construction Ltd, Marine Atlantic and VIA Rail. Selling off the CBC, all by itself, would look churlish.


----------



## armyvern (25 Apr 2011)

Someone has actually bothered to begin collecting various examples of biased media clips ... choose reporter of choice ...

http://wn.com/Robert_Fife


----------



## Rifleman62 (25 Apr 2011)

Another one: http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/04/19/liberal-volunteer-charged-in-connection-with-theft-of-tory-signs/
*
Liberal volunteer charged in connection with theft of Tory signs*

Caught red handed (going through the red door).

I do not understand why the slashing on tires and scratching of an"L" is front page news in all the media. The thrust is that it is the evil Cons are doing this. Sound bite from Iggy (of course) stating that all party leaders should condemn these acts. Newsreader states the other two party leaders have done so. 

It could be that it is just a bunch of vandals. 

Anyway, the last I heard, the Toronto Police have *twenty* reported cases of slashed tires and "L"s. Front page news.

Of course we all know that every crime is reported don't we Iggy and Jack.


----------



## ModlrMike (25 Apr 2011)

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2011/04/25/cv-election-volpe.html

Here's an article on the CBC about Joe Jolpe's volunteer.

Notice the article is closed to comments. I bet there would be several thousand if this was a Tory.


----------



## armyvern (25 Apr 2011)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2011/04/25/cv-election-volpe.html
> 
> Here's an article on the CBC about Joe Jolpe's volunteer.
> 
> Notice the article is closed to comments. I bet there would be several thousand if this was a Tory.



Indeed; I've just been skimming through the stories links and it would seem that any articles about the Tories are open for comments ... and let me tell you, there's some doozies of RTFOOer comments on them ...

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadavotes2011/story/2011/04/25/cv-election-harper-042511.html#

Wonder why they would not even allow comments for articles looking bad about the Grits, while every other party, and it's candidates, seem to be fair game for comments on CBC when it's a "bad news for so and so" article.  :


----------



## Hawk (25 Apr 2011)

I just went to take a look at the CBC article about the pamphlet switch. You can look at the pictures, and it looks like they opened it up for comments. Only 3 there right now.

Hawk


----------



## Edward Campbell (25 Apr 2011)

It's really a bit hard to blame the media, not just the CBC, for trying to stir the pot.

Look at this graphic, from _ThreeHundredEight.com_:






Source: http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-okzuXeGEha4/TbXMTo6MIKI/AAAAAAAAE6s/yInG6jbgW_Y/s1600/Canada+Polls.PNG

The voting intention have been pretty well stagnant - 38% =/- 3% for the Conservative and 27% +/- 3% for the Liberals ever since the campaign started. The boys and girls in the newrooms play "gotcha journalism" these days, with the aim being to move those steady numbers. Until late last week it hadn't worked and the media cannot take any real credit for Jack Layton success (except for usually giving him a free pass on the tough questions).

The media are not above _manufacturing con*t*ent_ (_pace_ Noam Chomsky) when they think it will help, but, on balance, I think they have been trying hard, but within what few "rules" there are, to penetrate Harper's armour and to provoke Ignatieff. Mansbridge managed the latter when he gave Ignatieff a chance to screw himself with the _coalition_ question: Ignatieff took the bait; Harper has not been provoked.

I do agree that most journalists appear to be anti-Harper. Some are, probably, just _naturally_ (as a result of their education and life experiences) anti-conservative; some are, probably, committed Liberals (BIG government) or _Dippers_ (silk stocking socialists); most are probably just trying to poke sticks at the guys in power because they actually buy into the "comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable" rubbish.


----------



## Brad Sallows (25 Apr 2011)

It's interesting that the rise and fall of the undecided line most closely mirrors the fortunes of the NDP.  It's as if the undecided voters are, on their "decided voter" days, whimsically favouring the NDP.  That's easier to do for all polls except the one which counts, so I will stick to my belief that the people who believe the projections of an NDP surge are on political crack.


----------



## ModlrMike (25 Apr 2011)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> ...so I will stick to my belief that the people who believe the projections of an NDP surge are on political crack.



I agree. The NDP numbers in Quebec are skewing the national numbers. One doesn't see the same degree of gains being made in the other four regions, most notably Ontario, where they're actually quite flat. If you exclude Quebec, the NDP polls closer to 21%. In fact, if you take Quebec out of the equation for all parties you get:

Tory 49.8
Lib 23.4
NDP 21%

(data taken from ThreeHundredEight.com)


----------



## vonGarvin (25 Apr 2011)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> If you exclude Quebec, the NDP polls closer to 21%. In fact, if you take Quebec out of the equation for all parties you get:
> 
> Tory 49.8
> Lib 23.4
> ...


Interesting.  How would that translate into seats outside of Quebec?


----------



## ModlrMike (25 Apr 2011)

From a purely mathematical approach: (let's say status quo in Quebec)

Tory 116 (+ 11 in Que) 126
Lib 54 (+ 14 in Que) 68
NDP 48 (+ 1 in Que) 49

That leaves 20 seats unaccounted for, so from a math perspective, it doesn't work.

If you look at the riding details, only one seat is forecast to go NDP; one they already have. They've come up, and are leading in Gatineau, but that's it. Nationally, they look to gain one more at the expense of the LIbs.




We should really move this over to the Election 2011 thread I guess.


----------



## PuckChaser (25 Apr 2011)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> Interesting.  How would that translate into seats outside of Quebec?



That's the big question. A party could poll well in popular vote, but fail to gain any seats: Green Party. Or the other way, where a party say polls only 40% but that 40% is enough to win 155 seats in the house. Can you imagine all the electoral reform bandwagonners if Harper pulls out a majority? Probably the same crew that though it was ok for the Liberals to ignore Western Canada to gain its majorities in the 90s.


----------



## Rifleman62 (26 Apr 2011)

PuckChaser, with your ability to see into the future, you can make a lot of bucks!


----------



## PuckChaser (26 Apr 2011)

With the cost of gas, I think I'll need that million bucks soon.  >


----------



## ModlrMike (26 Apr 2011)

OK, I don't know if this is bias, or just plain stupidity:
(Reproduced with the usual caveats)

Support for independent swells in Ottawa riding
CBC News
Posted: Apr 25, 2011 6:20 PM ET
Last Updated: Apr 25, 2011 6:20 PM ET 

With a week to go until the federal election, the controversial Conservative incumbent in the riding of Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke will have to contend with a last-minute surge of support for a 61-year-old independent candidate.

More at link.


Now we hop over to ThreeHundredEight.com to look at the latest riding numbers:

C = 63.5, L = 21, N = 9.9, G - 5, I = 0.7

That's one hell of a surge!


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (26 Apr 2011)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Not a *HUGE* problem if it is done very quickly and is done a part of a larger "sell off" of government _'stuff'_ that includes, just for the sake of argument, Defence Construction Ltd, Marine Atlantic and VIA Rail. Selling off the CBC, all by itself, would look churlish.



I think a simple statement that the government is not in the business of running business would suffice.  We got rid of Petro-Canada, CN Rail and Air Canada with no problem.

As no-one would actually pay for a business that loses a $ 1 billion yearly, it would have to go as an asset sale.  If it was done as part of a first majority budget and done immediately and completely it could be successful.


----------



## George Wallace (26 Apr 2011)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> OK, I don't know if this is bias, or just plain stupidity:
> (Reproduced with the usual caveats)
> 
> Support for independent swells in Ottawa riding
> ...



ModlrMike

Both Cheryl Gallant and Hec Clouthier are idiots of the highest order.  Neither listen to their handlers, nor do their handlers listen to the advice given by others.  I personally know people who have worked for Gallant and the level of frustration they have had with her, and in particular her personal manager is through the roof.  Prior to Clouthier, the former Liberal member of the House, losing the seat to Gallant, he attended a Parade at the RCD to commemorate the winning of three Victoria Crosses at the Battle of Leliefontein in South Africa.  His office was given the Parade format and the reading of the Battle.  The reading of the Battle was said on Parade.  At the reception after the parade, Hec gave a short speech to the Regiment and their guests and went on about how the bravery of the men at Paardeburg would live on in the Regiment.  Hundreds of his potential voters looked at each other in awe.  This guy was so out of touch with what was going on, that he lost their votes on the spot.

That riding will have quite an interesting evening.  Both the Conservative and Independent candidates are fools.  The Liberal candidate is a former resident parachuted in from Southern Ontario.  The other candidates are so far behind in the woods that there will likely be little mention of them.  If the Independent candidate does win, I do see him becoming a Liberal soon after he takes his seat, as he is a die in the wool Liberal.


----------



## Rifleman62 (26 Apr 2011)

This is the best summary of what actually happened.

A Wpg Blogger: http://blackrod.blogspot.com/

Monday, April 25, 2011

*The unfettered bias of Terry Milewski, Robert Fife, Bruce Cheadle and Bruce Campion-Smith*

The pack journalism of the Parliamentary Press Gallery was on display like never before this past weekend. We got to see the extent to which they're willing to go to inject their personal political biases into the election campaign and to pass off their own opinions as news.

But, sadly for them, we also got to see how the days of the mainstream media are numbered.

It all began at a Conservative Party election rally in Mississauga where Prime Minister Stephen Harper was answering questions from reporters. Harper-hater Terry Milewski of the CBC got to the microphone with a list of carefully prepared ambush questions which he, himself, confessed were the talking points of Harper's critics.

The next day, press gallery reporters for CBC, CTV, CP, the Toronto Star and even Postmedia spread stories across the country that the audience, prompted by Harper aides, drowned out Milewski's questions to protect the Prime Minister.

The stories are lies.

The reporters knew it.

And, thanks to the new media, the public can, too.

* It begins with Milewski at the mic. Contrary to the meme being spread by the press gallery that Harper's media access is scripted and controlled with reporters limited to 4 questions, Milewski, following other reporters, asked three questions himself and wanted answers in English and French for each.

His "question" consisted of three mini-speeches. He spoke for almost two minutes.

To understand how the press gallery spins the story you have to hear Milewski's condescending, contemptuous, insulting questions for yourself. Here, then, is a transcript, with a few choice phrases highlighted.

Terry Milewski:

"Thank you. Good morning, sir. "

"You have been portraying yourself in this campaign throughout as tough on crime and a friend to victims. And I'd like to put to you, if you don't mind, um, some items which suggest to your critics otherwise, and to have your comments on these in both languages, if you could."

"First, your candidate in Scarborough, we all know, was an enthusiastic cheerleader for a terrorist group, the Tamil Tigers. Now one of your own ministers, Peter Kent, has repudiated him. You haven't. Why not? Why is Mr. Paranchothy still your candidate?"

"And, second, you promised in your 2006 platform Stand Up For Canada to create a national Security Commissioner. You broke that promise and you continue to break it even when a judge that you appointed, John Major, urged you to keep it, said it was essential, would require no new bureaucracy. So the second question is why you broke your promise on such a basic issue of public safety."

"And finally your campaign has now issued what seems to be a completely preposterous statement on the decision of your candidate in Vancouver South, Wai Young, uh, to, uh, meet with and receive the endorsement of a well-known member, founder member, of the Babar Khalsa terrorist group who paid over $100,000 to the bombmaker in Air India. And, sir, the point here is that Malik was front page news for five straight years in the biggest criminal case in Canada history in her town and Wai Young now (says she?) didn't know who she was, who he was, went to his meeting, heard him endorse her, didn't know who she was."

"Isn't that a slap in the face to the Air India victims's families and why is Wei Young still your candidate?"

* Harper then answered the questions.

All three of them.

The questions that were asked without interruption from the audience.

Stephen Harper:

" First of all, 3 of these things...First of all our candidate in Scarborough has been very clear on his rejection of the Tamil Tigers.Very clear on that. That is the position of this party and this party is the one that listed the Tamil Tigers organization.
" In terms of the national Security Commissioner...we looked at that some years ago and concluded that the current arrangement where we have a national security adviser coordinating a number of agencies within the Privy Council office is the way we wanted to go. I think that is the most effective way to go and we've looked at the various options."

" Finally, in terms of our candidate in Vancouver South...she was invited to attend a school, she attended, in good faith, uh, she has been very clear, she and her campaign have no links and do not welcome in any way Mr. Malik into this party. We're absolutely clear about that."

* Barely had he stopped speaking when Milewski began to argue with the P.M.

"Do you actually believe, sir..."

And the applause started. The audience just realized the Prime Minister had finished his answer. They clapped politely, then louder, then joined in a standing ovation and ended with chanting Harper's name a few times. It lasted about a minute.

And then, Prime Minister Harper.... answered Milewski's 3 questions again---in French.

Far from silencing Milewski, Stephen Harper gave six answers to three questions from one reporter.

* How did the Parliamentary Press Gallery report the exchange?

Canadian Press
Cheering Conservative partisans shield Harper from awkward terrorism questions
By: Bruce Cheadle, The Canadian Press
04/23/2011 8:22 PM | MISSISSAUGA, Ont. - Partisan supporters of Prime Minister Stephen Harper — led by Conservative staffers — purposely drowned out media questions Saturday about a controversial endorsement from a man with links to the Air India bombing.
A reporter attempted to ask Harper if he actually believed Young could not know who Malik was when she received his endorsement.
A Conservative staffer near the reporter prompted the crowd of about 500 into sustained, aggressive applause that lasted more than a minute, drowning out the reporter's repeated efforts to get a response from Harper.

The Toronto Star
Party favours: Election ephemera
2011/04/23 14:14:00
Bruce Campion-Smith (Ottawa Bureau chief , the Toronto Star)
Stephen Harper’s relations with journalists hit a new bump Saturday when a crowd of partisan supporters shouted down a reporter as he tried to get an answer from the Conservative leader.

CTV
Cheering partisans shield Harper from questions
Updated: Sat Apr. 23 2011 6:07:55 PM
CTV.ca News Staff
Conservative Party staff helped a crowd of Ontario supporters to drown out reporters' questions Saturday to Prime Minister Stephen Harper about a controversial endorsement in B.C. from a man with links to the Air India bombing.
When a reporter attempted to follow up with a question about whether Harper actually believed Young did not know one of the most high-profile characters in the Air India saga, Conservative staff rallied the crowd into loud applause. As staffers led cheers of "Harper!" the crowd surged to its feet.

The Globe and Mail
Tory crowd drowns out question about support from man acquitted in Air India
STEVEN CHASE (Parliamentary bureau reporter, The Globe and Mail)
MISSISSAUGA, ONT.— Globe and Mail Update
Published Saturday, Apr. 23, 2011 11:29AM EDT
Last updated Saturday, Apr. 23, 2011 6:33PM EDT
Conservative partisans deliberately drowned out a journalist’s question to Mr. Harper during a Greater Toronto Area campaign stop Saturday as he was being asked about a Vancouver candidate’s endorsement by a man acquitted in the Air India bombing.
*************
* Milewski was interviewed Sunday on Newsworld.
"So the idea that she somehow didn't know who he was seems almost too bizarre to believe. Yesterday, as you know, an attempt to get Mr. Harper to confirm that he actually believed that story was unsuccessful due to the enthusiasm of his supporters who kind of drowned out the question. We asked Harper again, the question he wouldn't answer yesterday."

* Robert Fife, CTV 's Parliamentary Bureau Chief, discussed the incident on CTV Newsnet.
Female Host: Somehow they were encouraging the crowd to essentially drown out those media questions. Is anybody talking about that today?

Fife: When a reported asked 'do you believe, do you believe her?'... when he asked that question, people from the Prime Minister's office were on a stage encouraging people to clap and shout the reporter down. So on a matter of principle we asked Harper about this today.

* The pack was in full howl. The saintly reporter was shouted down and drowned out when all he wanted to do was ask a follow-up question. Oh, those evil Conservatives.

What the press gallery reporters still haven't learned is that their day is long gone.

On Small Dead Animals, this comment popped up on the thread about the Milewski incident:

Here is the video...the media are liars on this story
http://ottawa.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20110423/conservatives-mississauga-110423/20110423?hub=OttawaHome
Posted by: Ontario Girl at April 23, 2011 9:39 PM

Video? Yep. And on the CTV website, too. Watch it before they take it down.

You will hear for yourself Milewski's sneering questions and insulting behavior towards the Prime Minister. A perfect example of CBC manhood.

You will see that Stephen Harper answered all of Milewski's questions, twice.

You will see that Milewski wasn't asking a follow up question; he was starting to argue with the P.M. His mind was already made up. The answer from Harper and his camp was , in his opinion, "completely preposterous" and "almost too bizarre to believe."

What, then, did he wish to get from his "follow-up" question.

Obviously, he wanted to goad Harper into a sound bite that could be used by the Liberals, especially Ujjal Dosangh, the source of the Vancouver South complaint in the first place, which Milewski freely admitted ("some items which suggest to your critics otherwise").

Milewski was acting as a foil for the Liberals. The audience realized that.

This wasn't CBC's Liberal election rally. This was a Conservative Party rally, and they let their voices be heard.

The Parliamentary Press Gallery was incensed. So they simply ignored the truth and went with the lie. Poor Terry got shouted down. How can we help the Liberals if we let that sort of thing happen.

But they didn't count on the new media---the internet. The video of the entire exchange was online and available for anyone to see.

The gatekeepers have lost control.

And all their credibility.

Is there anyone left who believes the "national reporters" are impartial reporters who don't inject their personal opinions into their, ahem, "news" reports?

If you find someone, show them the Milewski video. Be sure to issue the "barf alert.


----------



## a_majoor (26 Apr 2011)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> OK, I don't know if this is bias, or just plain stupidity:
> (Reproduced with the usual caveats)
> 
> Support for independent swells in Ottawa riding
> ...



This reminds me of a 2006 by election here in London where Elizabeth May decided to run against Glenn Pearson (Liberal) and former Mayor Dianne Haskett (CPC). May finished a distant second, and Haskett had about a 1% lower vote count. Naturally, the London Free Press and other local media covered themselves in glory by crowing that Haskett came in a distant third...

(numbers here)


----------



## Saskboy (26 Apr 2011)

518 votes? That's a pretty narrow margin to be calling "distant".  :facepalm: I hope someone called them on that one.

When I first started watching CBC on a regular basis this year (my parents had American satellite  ;D) I began to perceive bias in their reporting. Initially I wrote it off as a result of something called the "Hostile Media Effect" which I had read a very short article on at some point. The more I've examined their stories though, the less convinced I am that it's the HME at all. Frankly, I'm disappointed by the MSM, I understand that many of these agencies are a business, but any other business which blatantly lies to the public comes under intense scrutiny when people call BS on them. Why are so many individuals so ready to allow themselves to be spoon-fed fabricated nonsense just because it comes from "news" agencies? Disappointing. :

Unfortunately, I've noticed that many of my friends are buying into the BS that's sold by CBC and others and making ill-advised political decisions based on misrepresented stories.  

Quite the age we live in when a taxpayer subsidized news network can create better fiction than some of Canada's aspiring screen writers. People deserve better.


----------



## GAP (26 Apr 2011)

and the smear campaign continues on "As it Happens" tonight on CBC....they dragged out the victim's ombudsman (the one they didn't renew his contract) to whine about the programs is a PR program and the Conservatives aren't really doing anything about most of the victims......

uh, most of the victims don't come under the Federal jurisdiction, it provincial.....

Rob Nicolson followed the twit and mostly put paid to the accusations.....but what bothered me was the constant tone by CBC that the Conservatives are BAD, BAD....... :


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (27 Apr 2011)

This morning on CTV Ignatieff repeated the statement that his government would quit subsidizing big oil companies.  Note that the government does not subsidize oil companies.  The government provides accelerated capital cost allowances which are a tax delay not a forgiveness.  The higher rates are already being phased out.

Alberta is just pulling out of a recession that also affected Ontario.  While the government was writing $ billions in cheques to big auto, they compensated for the low oil price with a delay in paying taxes.  I don't know if it's just CBC but I suspect a big factor is lightweight journalists.  They just assume that Conservatives would subsidize big oil instead of finding the truth.  Some of it may be that they are just stupid and not evil.


----------



## a_majoor (27 Apr 2011)

A blogger scores a goal (but it takes a year)

http://thealbertaardvark.blogspot.com/2011/04/albertaardvark-1-cbc-0-scott-reid-and.html



> *Albertaardvark 1, CBC 0. Scott Reid and the CBC correct an error*
> 
> It only took a full year, many emails, and finally the big stick of the CBC Ombudsman to make it so, but Scott Reid and CBC's Power and Politics have finally corrected an error made April 1st 2010.
> 
> ...


----------



## Old Sweat (27 Apr 2011)

The above contains a very interesting statement - *Mistakes are made regularly in journalism. Academic studies indicate roughly one in two stories contain a factual error, a rate that hasn’t changed much over the decades despite better educated journalists and more sophisticated and familiar guest commentators.*

Some of that is attributable to human error, and the hard wiring of the brain, while I suspect that the short deadlines and competitiveness inherent in journalism contribute as well. Other factors are the tendency to see conspiracies and deceit where none exist, and just plain nastiness. I would be more inclined to accept their human failings if journalists as group were willing to accept them in others. I would be even more so inclined to be forgiving if they displayed a willingness to admit their errors, rather than claiming near Papal infalliability.

Rant off.


----------



## ModlrMike (27 Apr 2011)

A 50% error rate? And we're supposed to take their pronouncements as gospel. If I worked at 50% accuracy the dead would be piled up like cordwood.


----------



## a_majoor (27 Apr 2011)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> A 50% error rate? And we're supposed to take their pronouncements as gospel. If I worked at 50% accuracy the dead would be piled up like cordwood.



Or you would fail PWT 3


----------



## PuckChaser (28 Apr 2011)

They correct that error, but CTV was running a story this afternoon that a CPC candidate was influence peddling visas to get votes. Liberal candidate had all these claims, but stated in the story no one has come forward yet, and they don't have any proof. I guess slander is a news story now. http://toronto.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20110427/dhalla-parm-gill-improper-auditor-general-110427/20110427?hub=TorontoNewHome


----------



## Journeyman (28 Apr 2011)

Read the BOLD headline, written by a more senior CBC Staffer


> *Fiery Chrétien rallies Liberal faithful*



...and then read the actual text:


> Former prime minister Jean Chrétien _attempted_ to boost the political fortunes of Michael Ignatieff.....



Pathetic, lame media spin.  


Oh, and Liberal media, er....CBC staff...."Prime Minister" should be capitalized; even for Chrétien, it's a formal title.   :


----------



## a_majoor (28 Apr 2011)

The CBC is obviously salivating over a Jack Layton led coalition, with billions of dollars worth of bounty flowing year after year as far as the eye can see.

The rest of the Media might suddenly wake up and ask hard questions when they realize media is "Big Business" and firmly in the sights of the NDP as well..... >


----------



## vonGarvin (28 Apr 2011)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> The rest of the Media might suddenly wake up and ask hard questions when they realize media is "Big Business" and firmly in the sights of the NDP as well..... >


As an Organ of The State, Prime Minister Layton would require a propaganda machine to help him to peddle his snake oil to funnel the money, not to big business, but to his cronies, all the while feeding the masses their pablum.


----------



## a_majoor (28 Apr 2011)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> As an Organ of The State, Prime Minister Layton would require a propaganda machine to help him to peddle his snake oil to funnel the money, not to big business, but to his cronies, all the while feeding the masses their pablum.



The CBC can be expanded without limit.....


----------



## OldSolduer (29 Apr 2011)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> The CBC can be expanded without limit.....



And the CF won't get the proper equipment it requires.


----------



## Saskboy (29 Apr 2011)

"Sorry gents, we just don't have enough in the budget this year to buy certain luxury items... We have to choose, do we want bullets or powder this year?"


----------



## Edward Campbell (30 Apr 2011)

I was just watching CBC news. There were four main campaign reports: one on each of Layton, Ignatieff, Duceppe and Harper.

The Layton report dealt, mainly, with the scurrilous Sen media report about his midnight visit to a body-rub parlour; the Ignatieff report focused on his campaigning in Southern Ontario; the Duceppe report showed Pauline Marois once again joining in to _sauve qui peut_. The Harper report wasn't about Harper or the campaign at all: it was a report by Terry Milewski about Harper refusing to answer a Terry Milewski “have you stopped beating your wife” type question to Terry Milewski's satisfaction. So, in fact we had four campaign reports: about Layton, Ignatieff, Duceppe and Milewski. Fair and balanced, eh?


----------



## Rifleman62 (30 Apr 2011)

http://blog.decisioncanada.ca/uncategorized/harper-refuses-to-say-if-he-would-accept-governor-generals-decision-on-coalition/#more-4660

The above is the real video of the incident. I do not know what CBC showed, and I bet is was not the above.

Plus read the reports of this in the media incl the NP. 

Cdn media: No ethics. No professionalism. Just window lickers.


----------



## Edward Campbell (30 Apr 2011)

Harper's answer could have been, "Gee, Terry, I must have missed the bit where you filed you papers to run in _Calgary Southwest_, but you obviously did because you are, pretty clearly, running against me rather than reporting on me."


----------



## MJP (30 Apr 2011)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> The Layton report dealt, mainly, with the scurrilous Sen media report about his midnight visit to a body-rub parlour; the Ignatieff report focused on his campaigning in Southern Ontario; the Duceppe report showed Pauline Marois once again joining in to _sauve qui peut_. The Harper report wasn't about Harper or the campaign at all: it was a report by Terry Milewski about Harper refusing to answer a Terry Milewski “have you stopped beating your wife” type question to Terry Milewski's satisfaction. So, in fact we had four campaign reports: about Layton, Ignatieff, Duceppe and Milewski. Fair and balanced, eh?



I saw the same thing and almost threw up in my mouth.  Besides continuing the blatant CPC bashing that the MSM is indulging in, it is also the fact that it seems that every other story is about them (the media) or something that happened to them that sickens me.  


Modified to clarify that them is the media and fix some horrible spelling...


----------



## GAP (30 Apr 2011)

Has anyone noticed that all parties, but the CPC are reported on first in newscasts, in glowing commentary, and at worst, neutral comments. The only time I have noticed them reporting on the "Harper" campaign first is if it is negative......this really is getting tiring...... 


  (note: I notice that it has even crept into CPAC broadcasts....)


----------



## Fishbone Jones (30 Apr 2011)

GAP said:
			
		

> Has anyone noticed that all parties, but the CPC are reported on first in newscasts, in glowing commentary, and at worst, neutral comments. The only time I have noticed them reporting on the "Harper" campaign first is if it is negative......this really is getting tiring......
> 
> 
> (note: I notice that it has even crept into CPAC broadcasts....)




Which is why I'm somewhat enjoying Sun News. There seems to be no sacred cows. While a bit unrefined, at present, I'm sure they'll soon get their legs. As far as reporting Layton's late night escapades being distasteful to some, I think they did what they've been promising from the start. The story was dropped in their laps, they checked the background for accuracy and put it out there. Where other agencies would've hid it or from it, they _reported_ it, as well they should have. It is topical and high profile. Don't think for a minute if CBC or CTV had a CPC candidate in the same circumstances they wouldn't be dancing around the fire and crowing it from the rooftops. Unlike other _journalists_ they didn't spin it, just reported what they found, interviewed the person who got the story and had some commentators give their thoughts. It's now up to the people to make judgement, as it's supposed to be. I hope they keep it up.


----------



## observor 69 (1 May 2011)

Not trying to start an argument, just some interesting information on how Sun TV is doing.


Analysis: So far at least, this Sun doesn’t shine on TV

http://www.thestar.com/business/companies/article/982404--analysis-so-far-at-least-this-sun-doesn-t-shine-on-tv


----------



## vonGarvin (1 May 2011)

Baden  Guy said:
			
		

> Not trying to start an argument, just some interesting information on how Sun TV is doing.
> 
> 
> Analysis: So far at least, this Sun doesn’t shine on TV
> ...


In all fairness, having the Toronto Star report on Sun TV would be like any political party leader commenting on any other leader's campaign.  My  :2c:


----------



## Edward Campbell (1 May 2011)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> In all fairness, having the Toronto Star report on Sun TV would be like any political party leader commenting on any other leader's campaign.  My  :2c:




You are right: there is no fairness amongst media competitors. But, that being agreed, the _Star_ reflects my opinion, too. I did not appreciate that _Sun News_ is, intentionally, 'low budget' but it shows.


----------



## Old Sweat (1 May 2011)

When CNN first came on the air back in 1980, it was widely criticized too. It soon began to build an audience and performed as least as well as the old line networks in covering the shooting of President Reagan and the Iranian Embassy siege in London. The same could be said of both CBC Newsworld and the CTV News Channel, although the latter was more polished from the start. It seems to me Newsworld had only been broadcasting for a short period when it had to cover Oka, and its performance was spotty at best, at the start. In my opinion Sun News (which I cannot receive) has had to create an operation from scratch and is thus closer to the original CNN than to the other Canadian news channels, which relied on their parent organizations for support. 

I would be interested in the impressions of this group of its coverage of the election compared to established networks.


----------



## Edward Campbell (1 May 2011)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> ...
> I would be interested in the impressions of this group of its coverage of the election compared to established networks.




Thus far I am disappointed, but, as has been said, they are running a very 'low budget' operation. They often rely upon _Sun_'s print journalists to come into the studio and report with a couple of still images - it's OK journalism, it's _weak_ TV. I suppose they cannot buy "feeds' from other networks.

Will they get better? Of course - it would be hard to not improve from the current state. How much better? I think it depends upon Palideau's aim; it he wants a competitive news channel, as e.g. Fox News competes, head-to-head, with CNN then I suspect he will need to feed in a lot more money - something I am not sure he has.


----------



## Old Sweat (1 May 2011)

It may be unfair to compare their election results coverage to the established networks, but if you are going to play with the big guys, then you had better be up to it.


----------



## GAP (1 May 2011)

I too cannot receive it, other than watching video clips online.....CNN didn't become a household name until Bagdad.....

Can't diss the cleavage though......refreshing, I tell yu, refreshing...... ;D


----------



## Fishbone Jones (1 May 2011)

I'll stand by my earlier comments. I think they've probably given all sides the same shake in this election, played no favourites and asked some very pointed and topical questions to all.

They'll come into their own eventually. The 'Red' Star has never printed much that I've agreed with or cared reading. I find them just right of Pravda and side by side with News of the World.


----------



## Rifleman62 (1 May 2011)

_Anything, anything_ is better than outright untruths giggled in your face.

CBC radio news last night: (Mr.) _*Harper*_ is in Toronto attempting to scare voters into voting Conservative.


----------



## vonGarvin (1 May 2011)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> CBC radio news last night: (Mr.) _*Harper*_ is in Toronto attempting to scare voters into voting Conservative.


Are you serious???


----------



## Rifleman62 (1 May 2011)

Yes. Midnight BC time CBC Radio One newscast.

Not a word for word quote. The female announcer spit out the name Harper IMHO.

Not the phrase "scare up" voters, but scare voters into voting Con. 

Item was after upbeat (not a pun) report on Jacko.


----------



## observor 69 (1 May 2011)

Harper’s game
by Paul Wells on Monday, April 4, 2011 2:05pm - 312 Comments


Friends, remember. The global recovery is fragile,” Stephen Harper told a room full of Conservatives in St. John’s. It wasn’t a big room but it was reasonably well-packed; the friendly audience had the Prime Minister surrounded on every side.

“Yes, Canada is doing relatively well,” Harper said. “But a sea of troubles is lapping at our shores.”

Reporters who’d been travelling with the Conservative leader longer than I had rolled their eyes. “Still lapping,” the guy from the CBC said cheerfully.

“Have you heard about the sea of troubles yet?” the lady from the Canadian Press had asked me that morning in Moncton. Apparently it’s a fixture of the Harper stump speech, although I had managed to miss it so far.

Here was my chance to catch up. Harper described the contours of the trouble sea to his latest audience: “Disaster in the pacific, chaos in the Middle East, debt problems in Europe, and all kinds of challenges — some very serious challenges — south of our border. Canada — this country — is the closest thing the world has to an island of stability and security. And we’ve got to keep it that way.”

So far Harper had been reading from a teleprompter, or perhaps by now reciting from memory, his voice brisk but flat. Now he spoke with real emotion. “What would the world think, were we as a country to suddenly head off in some high-tax economic direction, led by a reckless coalition without a coherent program or even basic national principles?”

This is the Harper pitch for 2011. He varies it at each stop. Sometimes he leaves the sea of troubles out. But it’s always the same argument. Life is not perfect in Canada but it’s getting better. Peril lies all around. If Canadians throw off the protective embrace of Harper’s Conservatives… well… well then the Visigoths will descend, won’t they? And by the time they are done with us, everything Canadians cherish will lie in ruin.

http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/04/04/harpers-game/


----------



## a_majoor (4 May 2011)

Blowback against the constant mudslinging:

http://bcblue.wordpress.com/2011/05/03/air-india-suspect-suing-cbcs-milewski/



> *Air India suspect suing CBC’s Milewski*
> May 3, 2011 — BC Blue
> 
> CBC’s Terry Milewski’s mud-slinging article (see here) which was intended to damage Conservative Wai Young, has provoked a lawsuit from Ripudaman Singh Malik against Milewski, claiming defamation (see here).
> ...



http://www.cknw.com/Channels/Reg/NewsLocal/Story.aspx?ID=1412029&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter



> *Malik claims journalist made defamatory statements on website *
> CKNW Vancouver (AM 980)
> 
> 5/3/2011
> ...


----------



## Journeyman (4 May 2011)

> Malik says the statements imply he was responsible for or criminally associated with the 1985 bombing.
> He says he was not a founder-member or a financier of the Babbar Khalsa, and that he may have been a member 27 years ago but hasn't been since.


OK, let me confess right from the top.....math is not my strong suit -- especially 'higher math' as is apparently required here.

- Singh Malik admits to being a member of a terrorist group 27 years ago.
- Said terrorist group blows up an airliner 26 years ago 
  - OK, this is the dodgy bit: 
    - 27 years ago = 1984. 
    - Airliner got blown up in 1985
    - Assuming that _some_ planning went into the operation.....would not a terrorist member 27 years ago likely been _vaguely_ familiar with his terrorist group's attack planned to occur 26 years ago?

I ask only because I'm a military guy. Sure, the Normandy invasion of 6 June 1944 (a Tuesday) was probably hashed out over beers on the Sunday, 4 June......

[Sarcastically posted for those whose math skills aren't as strong as mine    )


----------



## Infanteer (4 May 2011)

Maybe you could be Milewski's lawyer with those math skills....


----------



## Rifleman62 (4 May 2011)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w--iWMP48Fs&feature=player_embedded

Via Small Dead Animals.

Sun News on "The Media Party".


----------



## Kirkhill (4 May 2011)

I wonder if the Media will now start paying attention to the NDP's candidates and 'hidden agendas' now that they are the Loyal Opposition.

Have to admit it would have been nice to know about the candidates during the election.... It would even have been nice to know the publicly funded party's private constitution especially as it seems to have been around for at least a couple of years and been cribbed whole and entire from Das Kapital.


----------



## DBA (4 May 2011)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> When CNN first came on the air back in 1980, it was widely criticized too. It soon began to build an audience and performed as least as well as the old line networks in covering the shooting of President Reagan and the Iranian Embassy siege in London. The same could be said of both CBC Newsworld and the CTV News Channel, although the latter was more polished from the start. It seems to me Newsworld had only been broadcasting for a short period when it had to cover Oka, and its performance was spotty at best, at the start. In my opinion Sun News (which I cannot receive) has had to create an operation from scratch and is thus closer to the original CNN than to the other Canadian news channels, which relied on their parent organizations for support.
> 
> I would be interested in the impressions of this group of its coverage of the election compared to established networks.



Sun News Network is currently available around Ottawa over the air on 20.1 (a HDTV channel) with a normal antenna and a TV set with a digital tuner.  

I thought their election coverage was well done with some insightful comments as things developed throughout the evening. I live in Ottawa and flipped between CBC, CTV and Sun News Network. I usually watch CTV but it's still an analog channel so looks very poor compared to the other two which are digital (CBC on 4.1 and SNN on 20.1). The CBC coverage was junk with superficial analysis of various topics mixed  in. I thought Sun kept facts and opinion well separated and didn't pronounce their opinion on a topic as if it was fact like CBC tends to do.


----------



## a_majoor (4 May 2011)

Since Singh Malik was acquitted of all charges, he should be presumed innocent unless new evidence is brought forward. The fact the CBC allowed its reporter to broadcast the statement despite the acquittal and presumption of innocence is what is driving this suit forward.

Now he may or may not actually be a pure as driven snow (as suggested mathematically upthread), but for a reporter to make an allegation, and to do so in such a context as to damage a candidate from a particular party does not speak of good judgement at the very least.


----------



## a_majoor (10 May 2011)

Explain again why the CBC gets a billion dollars a year?

http://krydoristan.blogspot.com/2011/05/cbc-dtv-and-canada.html



> *CBC, DTV and Canada*
> 
> I'm not going to get into a large technical discussion, because all the details can be found at the OTA Digital Forums on Digital Home. ca. I'm also not going to get deep into perceived political biases of the CBC.  This rather short post will  focus more on CBC's intentional failure to meet their mandate on Sept 1, 2011.
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (10 May 2011)

A pretty outrageous example of how people let their personal bias drive the story. While this is a US example, we have seen examples upthread of this being done by the CBC and other media enablers. In the long run, this simply creates self inflicted wounds (notice the very same paper which published the story in question debunked the very "facts" used to support the story decades ago) and causes the legacy media to lose credibility. The ability of the Blogosphere to rapidly fact check and debunk these stories just makes things worse for the Legacy media.

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2011/05/10/new-york-times-magazine-relies-upon-faked-research-to-smear-military/



> *New York Times Magazine Relies upon Faked Research to Smear Military*
> Jonathan S. Tobin 05.10.2011 - 10:31 AM
> 
> On the day that Osama bin Laden was finally tracked down and killed, the New York Times Sunday Magazine published a cover story detailing the murder of Afghan civilians by American troops. The point of the piece was not to break the news of these crimes, since the incidents had already been uncovered and prosecuted by the military. Rather, they served as the jumping off point for a smear job, portraying the U.S. military as a bloodthirsty band of savage war criminals.
> ...


----------



## PuckChaser (11 May 2011)

Some pretty good points here: http://en.video.canoe.tv/video/news/canada/1896809958/trained-by-the-cbc/940305484001


----------



## a_majoor (11 May 2011)

Ezra Levant on the CBC. Tell me again why the CBC gets $1 billion/year?


----------



## PuckChaser (11 May 2011)

Think we've got the same link, though yours has the authors name.

The CBC is valuable as a public broadcaster, but not with its current sense of entitlement. It needs cash to push Canadian content, but the viewers should be deciding its cash flow. All of the commercials I see on the network really makes me wonder where the cash from the Feds is going.


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (11 May 2011)

I sent my obligatory "kill the CBC" letter to Harper.  Not holding my breath that he will take my advice this time but this budget would be a good time to end it.


----------



## Neill McKay (11 May 2011)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> All of the commercials I see on the network really makes me wonder where the cash from the Feds is going.



Radio?  Some of it, anyway.


----------



## a_majoor (28 May 2011)

The CBC costs taxpayer @ $114,155/hour. Think about that next time you see or hear a CBC production....


----------



## Neill McKay (29 May 2011)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> The CBC costs taxpayer @ $114,155/hour.



Can we see your calculations?


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (29 May 2011)

$1 billion divided by 365 days divided by 24 hours?


----------



## Old Sweat (29 May 2011)

Dennis Ruhl said:
			
		

> $1 billion divided by 365 days divided by 24 hours?


It works for me. It actually comes to $114,155.25 per hour.


----------



## Rifleman62 (29 May 2011)

http://www.cbc.radio-canada.ca/media/facts/20110309.shtml

March 9, 2011

Main Estimates 2011-2012: An explanation of the $16.6M decline in funding for CBC/Radio-Canada

In The Government Expenditure Plan And The Main Estimates tabled in Parliament on March 1, 2011, funding for CBC/Radio-Canada shows a decline of $16.6 million, or 1.5%, from 2010-2011 to 2011-2012.

The decline has been characterized by some as a “cut” to CBC/Radio-Canada’s budget.
*
In fact, our funding remains relatively stable at $1.1 billion.*

The $16.6 million decline consists of CBC/Radio-Canada’s contribution to two previously announced federal spending reduction initiatives, applicable to all Government departments, agencies and crown corporations:

    Salary inflation funding freeze

        Funding identified in the 2010-2011 Main Estimates included $13.7 million for salary inflation. That funding was later frozen for all government departments, agencies and crown corporations in the 2010 Federal budget. In CBC/Radio-Canada’s case, the $13.7 million was adjusted by way of a reduction to the $60 million that was approved through the Supplementary Estimates tabled several months after the March budget (the $60 million has been received on a one-time basis since 2001-2002).

    Procurement Reform Initiative
        A further $2.8 million reduction in 2011-2012 represents the final instalment of incremental cuts related to the Procurement Reform Initiative announced in the 2007 Federal Budget (the total reduction amounts to $14.68 million/year).

As for the $60 million that the Corporation has been receiving on a one-time basis since 2001-2002 and which is vital to the Corporation’s Canadian programming initiatives, we hope to hear shortly about its status for 2011-12.


----------



## GAP (4 Jun 2011)

CBC losses $36M in 2010: CRTC
By QMI Agency
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/MediaNews/2011/06/03/18236001.html

Canada's national public broadcaster lost nearly $36 million last year, according to recently published figures from the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission.

The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation posted a pre-tax loss of $35.4 million for the year ending Aug. 31, 2010, mainly due to rising costs. In 2009, it lost $22 million.

The CBC gets a $1.1-billion annual subsidy from the federal government and operates in many less profitable and remote regions of the country.

"It all seems like a losing proposition," said Stephen Taylor, director of the National Citizens Coalition, a taxpayer advocacy group.

The NCC wants to see the CBC privatized to ensure an equal playing field in Canada's TV industry.

Taylor said the CBC is taking ad dollars that would otherwise go to private players.

"It's taking essentially the juice out of the competition," he said. "Market-wise, that doesn't help. It doesn't help build better television."

Total CBC revenue was up 1.4% to $1.24 billion from just under $1.23 billion in 2009.

"The increase in our revenues is mainly attributable to our performing TV schedules, the broadcast of the FIFA World Cup and increasing revenues for our digital services," said CBC spokesman Jeff Keay.

The loss demonstrated on the CRTC statements is a standard accounting loss, Keay said. "On a budgetary basis the CBC/Radio-Canada runs a balanced budget each year."

Last year, CBC brought in $338.8 million in advertising revenue, up 14.1% over 2009. But expenses were also 2.79% higher as the CBC spent more on programming and promotions, including print ads aimed at boosting public confidence in the broadcaster.

Last month, CBC/Radio-Canada denied a QMI Agency request for more information on how much it spent on to celebrate its 75th anniversary.

Overall, sales and promotional spending was up 16.53%, though administration and general expenses were down 10.69%.

The CBC spent more on programming than it made on programming at $69.6 million versus $66.4 million.

The broadcaster spent nearly 11% less on staff salaries in 2010 than it did in 2009, paying out $540 million to roughly 6,227 employees. The average yearly pay for a CBC staff member was $86,717.

The CRTC also published data on Canada's private broadcasters.

The group, which includes BCE's CTV, Shaw's newly acquired Global and Quebecor's TVA saw high single-digit and double-digit revenue gains as advertisers ramped up spending and pay-TV subscribers spent more money.

The gains however did not translate into more jobs in private-sector broadcasting. The conventional TV workforce shrank by 6.3% in 2010, while the pay and specialty services workforce remained relatively stable.

Quebecor also owns various other media properties including QMI Agency, Sun Media, Journal de Montreal and Canoe.ca.


----------



## Rifleman62 (4 Jun 2011)

CBC should be doing programs like the popular Ice Pilots, Ice Road Truckers (programs about Cdns), even Alaska Gold Rush (filmed in the Yukon last summer).  No "actors", film crew and producer. Swords, Life On The Line is more often than not off Newfoundland, and offloading the catch there.

Sell the CBC.


----------



## GAP (4 Jun 2011)

> The average yearly pay for a CBC staff member was $86,717.



Now I know about the highs and lows of averaging, but isn't this rather high?


----------



## Edward Campbell (4 Jun 2011)

It may be that government has a duty to deliver information (and entertainment) to people living in remote and isolated communities - places which cannot show a profit for a private broadcaster.

There are two ways to do this:

1. create and maintain a public broadcaster with a specific mandate to serve those regions; or

2. subsidize the private broadcasters to serve those regions as a condition of license.

Neither is especially palatable.

Back in the 1930s, when the Canadian Radio Broadcasting Commission, ancestor of both the CBC, the broadcaster, and the CRTC, the regulator, was formed the need to 'serve' Canadians was balanced with a _nationalist_ requirement to "tell our own story," or to avoid being overwhelmed by the bigger, louder American "story." Many would argue that need still exists. If it does then it, too, can be met in two ways:

1. create and maintain a public broadcaster to "tell our own story;" or

2. subsidize the private broadcasters and, as a condition of license, require the to "tell Canada's stories to Canadians," i.e. to produce Canadian drama, comedy, documentaries and so on.

Either option will have proponents and opponent, but, if you accept the premise that the 'service' is required then one or the other (or, worse, both) bust be chosen.

It seems to me that one of the problems with broadcasters is that they lack a clearly defined _editorial position_. When I open the _Daily Telegraph_ or the _New York Times_ or even the _National Post_ I have a pretty good idea of the _slant_ that editorialists and reporters will apply to the news of the day. I thinkj we deserve the same from broadcast news agencies - always recognizing that CBC or CTV are, roughly, the equivalent a newspaper in which to 65% of the pages are devoted to the comics, 25% to sports and 10% to real news and opinion.


----------



## Kirkhill (4 Jun 2011)

Further to ERC's thought:

In the 1930s the mechanisms for distribution of the message were radio, movies, papers and books and the pulpit.  All of them were used effectively.  These days the mechanisms have changed considerably.   

Radio was a glorious tool for dissemination because in addition to the novelty factor it broadcast the message in exactly the same manner as farmers used to broadcast their seed.  It was a cheap method of covering the ground with a single message.  Movies, papers and books and the pulpit didn't offer the same service because any individual could mount a pulpit, or write a book and, to an extent, produce a movie.  Equally individuals selected which movies they watched, books they read and churches (and fraternal organizations) they attended.  Radio could be used for dissemination of a single unifying message.

Today however that broadcast advantage is long since gone.   Now people are back to selecting the messenger, the mechanism of delivery and the message.  It now requires a more complex plan to deliver any given message.

Now the first question is: should government be in the business of delivering any message at all?  My own personal inclination is to answer no except in the form of keeping the citizenry informed of rules, regulations and upcoming decisions.

But setting that aside and assuming that it is important for government to convey a unifying message then surely they have to look to the advertisers of the world (as they do during elections) and concentrate on producing compelling content that messengers will pick up and distribute for them?

An alternative to spending 1 BCAD a year on the CBC as it is would be to focus the CBC on dry, "Lorne Green - Voice of Doom", "A. Spokesman" news gathering while much of the rest of the money went back into Arts Canada and the National Film Board and also the provision of high-speed broadband data transmission to remote locations.

The message, assuming that such a message is important, could be crafted through the sponsorship of the NFB and Arts Canada.  Of course the productions would have to be of sufficient quality to compete with US franchises like CSI, Law and Order and NCIS etc....


----------



## SeaKingTacco (4 Jun 2011)

> The message, assuming that such a message is important, could be crafted through the sponsorship of the NFB and Arts Canada.  Of course the productions would have to be of sufficient quality to compete with US franchises like CSI, Law and Order and NCIS etc....



Kirkhill-  I would argue that government funding in the arts virtually gaurantees that the art produced will not have broad market appeal.  The artist (producer/director/actor) in no way has to consider making the damned project pay if they know, deep down, that the Goverrnment will under write their losses.  That is not to say that free market art is automatically a success- it is just that I am not forced to pay through my taxes for failures!


----------



## Kirkhill (4 Jun 2011)

SKT - 

You're right and I agree fully.  As I noted, I don't see a need for government messaging myself in any case.

But.....

Having said that, if there is to be government sponsored messaging to make us all better citizens then the least we can do is attempt to make the experience as painless as possible.  

I wouldn't force private broadcasters/narrowcasters/ISPs to carry the government message.  I would leave it up to them to carry whatever they liked.  It would be up to the "artist"/bureaucrat to create a product that others considered worth carrying.  

And perhaps we should stipulate that the "creator" doesn't get paid (or paid in full) unless they achieve market success.  No sales, no revenue.

Which, actually, would mean freeing up more funds for the subsidizing of data transfer systems........Do they need subsidizing?  There seems to be an awful lot of activity on that front in any case - including places like Iraq, Afghanistan and China.


----------



## Edward Campbell (4 Jun 2011)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Kirkhill-  I would argue that government funding in the arts virtually gaurantees that the art produced will not have broad market appeal.  The artist (producer/director/actor) in no way has to consider making the damned project pay if they know, deep down, that the Goverrnment will under write their losses.  That is not to say that free market art is automatically a success- it is just that I am not forced to pay through my taxes for failures!




Many years, even centuries ago, when "great men" and the "state" were synonymous, in both Europe and Asia, _public_ funding (patronage by the "great men" using the revenues they collected from their "people") was the main source of artistic support. Maybe it should still be the same, today.

It is fair to say that rich men and women should patronize the arts - and they do, but who is to say that Li Ka Shing or Hillary Weston have a better "eye" for what will be great in 250 years than does a board of artists like the Canada Council for the Arts.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (4 Jun 2011)

Edward,

Hillary Weston is a better judge of art than the Canada Council because she is spending her money!

The Canada Council is spending my money.

Now, I must be state that I support Government Funding for the Arts- for Museums, even theatres.  I would even go as far as a fund for new artists to get them started in their careers.

But fund TV shows?  No thanks.


----------



## Edward Campbell (4 Jun 2011)

If William Shakespeare were alive today he would be writing for TV. If Beethoven were alive today he would be writing music for the screen, as Prokofiev did in the 1930s. TV and film are means of delivery, not ends in themselves. Consider, just as an example, Arthur Miler's _The Crucible_: it was a Tony award winner in 1953 and is now part of the _American canon_; it also translated easily to film, especially in the much rewarded 1996 version. Marshall McLuhan was wrong, the medium is not the message, it is just a way of transmitting the message to audiences.


Edit: Typo and two silly grammar errors.  :-[


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (5 Jun 2011)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> . Marshall McLuhan was wrong, the medium is not the message, it is just a way of transmitting the message to audiences.



Ever watch Andrew Coyne, Chantal Hebert, and Alan Gregg or Craig Oliver, Jane Taber, and Robert Fife?  Trust me, Marshall McLuhan was right.  Those 6 people had their heads so thoroughly planted up their own and each other's, that 2 sets of 3 wise men had no clue what was happening right under their noses.  They were watching each other instead of the voters.


----------



## Good2Golf (5 Jun 2011)

Dennis Ruhl said:
			
		

> Ever watch Andrew Coyne, Chantal Hebert, and Alan Gregg or Craig Oliver, Jane Taber, and Robert Fife?  Trust me, Marshall McLuhan was right.  Those 6 people had their heads so thoroughly planted up their own and each other's, that 2 sets of 3 wise men had no clue what was happening right under their noses.  They were watching each other instead of the voters.



Actually, Dennis, of all these six, it's not the CBC panel I think is out of it...it's Craig Oliver and his apoplectic rantings of hatred against Harper he manages to build into almost every commentary about government that gets me shaking my head.  When he really gets going, his nostrils flare and his eyes bulge and look like they'll pop right out of his head.  


Regards
G2G


----------



## Edward Campbell (5 Jun 2011)

Dennis Ruhl said:
			
		

> Ever watch Andrew Coyne, Chantal Hebert, and Alan Gregg or Craig Oliver, Jane Taber, and Robert Fife?  Trust me, Marshall McLuhan was right.  Those 6 people had their heads so thoroughly planted up their own and each other's, that 2 sets of 3 wise men had no clue what was happening right under their noses.  They were watching each other instead of the voters.




In my opinion the "talking heads" (too often "shouting heads") are the TV equivalent of newspaper columnists. I know what to expect from e.g. Lawrence Martin or John Ivison and they rarely deviate too far from their own, individual and fairly fixed positions. Ditto Oliver and Fife (and I agree 100% with G2G and I put Fife in the same league).

What annoys me are people like Terry Milewski who pretends to be a 'reporter' when he is, really, a commentator; I think worse of his bosses who play along with this charade.

But I don't watch the TV news to be informed. That, information, is the business of e.g. _Foreign Affairs_, _The Economist_ and even my daily newspapers - which do employ some reporters. I watch TV, including the CBC news, to be entertained - same reason I enjoy a symphony concert or the ballet, although the end state is different, I am often stimulated and made to think by a symphony or the ballet but I am, almost always, only mildly amused by the CBC news.


__________
P.S. It's not all dross on the CBC. I am entertained and stimulated on Sundays by e.g. Mary Hynes on CBC radio.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (5 Jun 2011)

Edward,

That is part of the problem- for the most part, the stuff on CBC radio is really pretty good (I too, am a Mary Hynes fan ). How do we keep that part and get rid of the stuff the taxpayer shouldn't be funding.  And who decides?


----------



## Edward Campbell (5 Jun 2011)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Edward,
> 
> That is part of the problem- for the most part, the stuff on CBC radio is really pretty good (I too, am a Mary Hynes fan ). How do we keep that part and get rid of the stuff the taxpayer shouldn't be funding.  And who decides?




As to how we keep the "good stuff" - *maybe something like* this:

1. Keep CBC radio pretty much 'as is,' including _Radio Canada International_, it has a small but discerning audience and it fulfills and important part of the *real* need for a public broadcaster, it provides news, information and entertainment to people in remote areas;

2. Auction off CBC TV, all of it; and

3. Offer generous public subsidies to all TV broadcasters who will agree to serve rural and remote areas and make serving rural and remote areas, with those subsidies, a condition of licence for any network that serves more than one province.

Who decides? The government of the day; we hired them to make tough, unpopular decisions. Let's see if they are worthy of their hire.


----------



## GAP (5 Jun 2011)

> TV broadcasters who will agree to serve rural and remote areas and make serving rural and remote areas



Define serve...is it Much Music/docudrama's/plus News of the Day.....

A lot of private broadcasters program is simply mush.....based on what the mushees are willing to highly rate.....


----------



## Edward Campbell (5 Jun 2011)

GAP said:
			
		

> Define serve...is it Much Music/docudrama's/plus News of the Day.....
> 
> A lot of private broadcasters program is simply mush.....based on what the mushees are willing to highly rate.....




The reason a lot most broadcasting (private and public) is mush is that a lot of very smart people are paid a lot of money to figure out what people want and what advertisers are willing to support and that is what we get: mush. Why should people in remote regions be denied their mush? You want substance? CBC radio, _The Economist_, *books!* ...


----------



## The Bread Guy (5 Jun 2011)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> 1. Keep CBC radio pretty much 'as is,' including _Radio Canada International_, it has a small but discerning audience and it fulfills and important part of the *real* need for a public broadcaster, it provides news, information and entertainment to people in remote areas;
> 
> 2. Auction off CBC TV, all of it; and
> 
> 3. Offer generous public subsidies to all TV broadcasters who will agree to serve rural and remote areas and make serving rural and remote areas, with those subsidies, a condition of licence for any network that serves more than one province.


That actually seems like a reasonable compromise between keeping a national broadcaster (which tends to cover mostly parts of Canada that have lots of people, but that's another thread).  Public content + helping private get 'er done.

Oh, oh - a reasonable compromise?  Did I just jinx the chances of that happening?


----------



## Good2Golf (5 Jun 2011)

Radio Canada International is actually a very respectable news program, IMO.  It is like the neutral BBC of the airwaves.  That should be kept.  Everything else can go...although I do like _The Hour _with George Stombolopolous (he's actually an asset to the CBC, but would do well independently as well.)


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (5 Jun 2011)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Radio Canada International is actually a very respectable news program, IMO.



Kill it all.  When CBC was formed, it was probably necessary to get TV coverage for the whole country.  A whole lot of BBC types were hired and English accents were common on local programming.  In the current days of 100s of networks profiting well, why is it necessary to spend a billion dollars annually on a network few watch?

Tomorrow is a perfect opportunity to kill CBC by means of the budget.  Or is it Liberal, Tory, same old story.  This spring is the time for the conservative agenda if, in fact, there is one.  I don't know about anyone else but I did vote for the wink and nudge.


----------



## Kirkhill (5 Jun 2011)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> 3. Offer generous public subsidies to all TV broadcasters who will agree to serve rural and remote areas and make serving rural and remote areas, with those subsidies, a condition of licence for any network that serves more than one province.



I think you would have to work really hard to find a community in Canada that does not have "Cable" TV (even if it is wireless).  Equally, I believe that most of those systems have the ability to disseminate local current affairs programmes.  All they need, I believe, is access to content.

Alternately, as is the case with CKUA here in Alberta, and many if not all radio stations, the internet does a marvellous job of streaming programming to my laptop wherever I go.


----------



## Neill McKay (5 Jun 2011)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> That is part of the problem- for the most part, the stuff on CBC radio is really pretty good (I too, am a Mary Hynes fan ). How do we keep that part and get rid of the stuff the taxpayer shouldn't be funding.  And who decides?



It would inform the discussion if we knew where the money is: does CBC TV cross-subsidize radio?  (Or, is the net subsidy given to the CBC greater or less than the cost of radio?)


----------



## Edward Campbell (6 Jun 2011)

N. McKay said:
			
		

> It would inform the discussion if we knew where the money is: does CBC TV cross-subsidize radio?  (Or, is the net subsidy given to the CBC greater or less than the cost of radio?)



This is from the CBC's 2009-2010 Annual Report, page 44:

OPERATING EXPENSES:

                                              *2009-2010*  
CBC Television                         $655   36%
Télévision de Radio-Canada    $459   26%
CBC Radio                               $202   11%
Radio de Radio-Canada           $145     8%     
Specialty services                    $118     7%    
Other                                       $211   12%   
                                            $ 1,790  100%

CBC Radio (French & English & RCI) costs $465M.

The same report, same page, says the Parliamentary appropriation for operations was $1,018M and advertising revenue was $309M. I think we can assume that, at auction, CBC TV _might_ be worth $500M to $1.0B – no more, I shouldn't think.

The subsidy (appropriation) is net to the corporation; advertising revenues apply to TV only.



Edit: typo


----------



## The Bread Guy (15 Jun 2011)

<sarcasm>Hey, let's not forget how much CBC pumps into the economy - just ask them:</sarcasm>


> CBC adds \$1.3B to Canadian economy yearly: study . Deloitte and Touche study was commissioned by #CBC.


Can't wait to see more on this....


----------



## The Bread Guy (17 Jun 2011)

If you believe these sorts of processes make a real difference, have at 'er!


> .... Welcome to the CRTC online consultation on CBC’s radio and television licence renewals. The comments and discussions resulting from this consultation will be considered for the upcoming hearing on the CBC renewals, as well as form part of the public record. We welcome your participation and thank you for sharing your comments on the CBC’s role in the broadcasting system .... The Broadcasting Act requires the CBC to reflect Canada to Canadians. At the same time, Canadians have increasing access to content of their choice from around the world on a variety of platforms ....



The portal seems to be in testing phase because when you click on the "Comment" or "Make a Comment" links, you don't go anywhere with comments or with a system to post comments.

Watch and shoot.....


----------



## Fishbone Jones (18 Jun 2011)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> If you believe these sorts of processes make a real difference, have at 'er!
> The portal seems to be in testing phase because when you click on the "Comment" or "Make a Comment" links, you don't go anywhere with comments or with a system to post comments.
> 
> Watch and shoot.....



I was able to post a comment.

It looks like the CBC is getting their asses handed to them.


----------



## Journeyman (18 Jun 2011)

recceguy said:
			
		

> It looks like the CBC is getting their asses handed to them.


Yes, but it's not yet noon on a Saturday. 
The left-wing's welfare-society commentariat aren't out of bed yet


----------



## a_majoor (18 Jun 2011)

The CBC's 7% audience share should be a pretty compelling argument to release bandwidth to people who can offer programming people will actually watch....


----------



## Fishbone Jones (18 Jun 2011)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Yes, but it's not yet noon on a Saturday.
> The left-wing's welfare-society commentariat aren't out of bed yet


Unless it's a stacked deck, with the typical foregone conclusions. The CRTC going through the motions and putting all the checks in the box, meanwhile coming up with some obscure reason why the majority of the existing comments don't count and the State Broadcaster gets to carry on it's merry way.


----------



## Maelstrom (18 Jun 2011)

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2011/06/17/pol-mandatory-minimums.html

"States cut drug penalties as Canada toughens them"

The article states nothing of value about what the Conservatives are trying to change, just enough talk about America changing to provoke the typical emotional response...


----------



## mad dog 2020 (26 Jun 2011)

Levant: Where’s the apology?
Ezra Levant
Sunday, June 26, 2011, 2:00:30 AM
For years, irresponsible left-wing extremists have smeared our Canadian Forces in Afghanistan, accusing our Canadian men and women of being war criminals.
Take Ujjal Dosanjh, who used to be the Liberal Party’s defence critic.
On the CBC, he demanded to know who “ordered” the torture of the Taliban, and who “sent” them to be tortured.
Notice, he took it as a fact the torture did in fact happen, and Canadian soldiers were somehow involved.
John McCallum, another prominent Liberal MP, went further. He actually accused the Canadian Forces of “war crimes.” Ironic, that. In Afghanistan, the Taliban commits crimes against humanity every day — but the only war crimes the opposition was interested in were the ones they claimed our Canadian Forces were committing.
The left is obsessed with slandering our Canadian Forces. In fact, they asked more than 1,200 questions about Taliban prisoners in question period. They did so because they knew their friends in the Media Party were just as eager to blacken the name of the Canadian Forces, and the war against Islamic terrorism in general.
Twelve-hundred opposition questions impugning the virtue of our soldiers.
How many questions did the opposition ask about how the Taliban throws acid in the face of little Muslim girls who want to go to school, and how our Canadian Forces are the ones protecting those girls?
Zero, of course.
After years of demanding to see confidential military, diplomatic and intelligence documents, they finally got their way.
This past week, 4,000 pages of classified documents were released to the public. The CBC sent no less than eight reporters to comb through those documents. They must have been positively euphoric — finally, they’d prove all of their smears and innuendos.
And, just in case they missed something, the CBC invited the public to comb through the documents, to make sure they don’t miss anything salacious.
The result: Nothing. Not a single shred of evidence Canadian Forces were involved in any torture whatsoever.
Of course not. That only existed in the minds of the opposition, and their anti-war friends in the Media Party.
Remember how those 4,000 pages were chosen. A multi-party committee, including former Liberal leader Stephane Dion himself, went through about 40,000 pages of documents. Most were irrelevant or redundant, but they chose the 4,000 most interesting.
Those were then reviewed by a panel of three judges, who blacked out information that would jeopardize our national security. Three judges made those blackouts — not politicians, not bureaucrats, not Stephen Harper.
This was Stephane Dion’s process.
This was the opposition’s process. Twelve million dollars was spent going through these documents.
And now: Nothing. No smoke, no fire, nothing to base their slanders on. Twelve-hundred questions in question period.
Millions of words in the mainstream media’s newspapers, TV and radio shows lobbying mud at our troops.
What do you do when you make a false accusation, when you insult someone, when you question their morality — and you’re wrong?
Well, you apologize. You apologize and you beg for forgiveness.
That’s what the CBC has to do now, what Stephane Dion and John McCallum and Ujjal Dosanjh should do now.
Frankly, it’s what James Moore, the boss of the CBC, who funds these anti-Canadian, anti-soldier smearers ought to do, too.
The Taliban committed the war crimes. Our Canadian Forces went there to stop it.
The Liberals, and James Moore’s CBC, and the rest of the Media Party, have disgraced themselves.


----------



## kawa11 (26 Jun 2011)

mad dog 2020 said:
			
		

> How many questions did the opposition ask about how the Taliban throws acid in the face of little Muslim girls who want to go to school, and how our Canadian Forces are the ones protecting those girls?


None. They let the thousands of men and women in CADPAT do the asking.
We're not some vigilante militia. We're still accountable for our actions on a world stage.



			
				mad dog 2020 said:
			
		

> After years of demanding to see confidential military, diplomatic and intelligence documents, they finally got their way.


Well damn all the major opposition parties for exercising democracy. If only the Tories hadn't refused to give up the information in the first place.



			
				mad dog 2020 said:
			
		

> This was the opposition’s process. *Twelve million dollars was spent* going through these documents.


source?


Could this be any more right wing? I feel like I'm reading a FOX newscast.


----------



## dale622 (26 Jun 2011)

I dislike fox news as much as the next guy but I don't feel this to be a political statement. I never expect anyone to come up and shake my hand and tell me a job well done for what I do. Just don't try to make more people look down on me and spit on my uniform for something I didn't do. I don't care about an apology or any sort of contradicting article. I will still go to work tomorrow wearing the same uniform and see the same guys I have known for years. I love what I do.


----------



## a_majoor (26 Jun 2011)

The question about releasing these documents has been discussed elsewhere, but a brief recap is the people asking had neither the security clearance nor the "need to know" for these documents, and there was certainly a reasonable expectation that despite the security classification(s) of these documents they would have been leaked for partisan political gain, endangering people and operations the CF was undertaking at that time.

I don't think the question about clearance or security has ever been answered, so anyone asking for these sorts of documents will have to wait while things are vetted, cross referenced etc. and cleared for release, then you _might_ get to see a heavily redacted document.

As Ezra Levant says, the only reason for all the noise and bluster was to try and score partisan points against the government (although that might well have backfired; the first known instance of Taliban falling into Canadian hands is in late 2002, during the mandate of the Chreitien government...). I think we can all see the line between legitimate questioning of the government and attempting to smear or embarrass the government; yes the subject itself is legitimate but the ways and means were far beyond any reasonable fact finding mission (even the lack of any questioning about the 2002-2006 period does not speak well of the opposition or media).


----------



## Gimpy (26 Jun 2011)

kawa11 said:
			
		

> Could this be any more right wing? I feel like I'm reading a FOX newscast.



I'm not sure if you've read Ezra Levant's columns before, but this is his MO. Everything he writes is labelled "opinion" and as such doesn't require him to source anything. As a result he has been successfully sued/held accountable for libel several times. Most notably for stating that George Soros collaborated with Nazis as a child which caused Sun Media to issue an apology and a retraction.

For instance he makes such a huge point about John McCallum blaming the Canadian Forces of war crimes. But John McCallum never said that and specifically pointed out that "they" referred to the government and not the troops. That is just Levant taking the statement of context to fit his narrative.


----------



## kawa11 (27 Jun 2011)

bananaman said:
			
		

> I dislike fox news as much as the next guy but I don't feel this to be a political statement. I never expect anyone to come up and shake my hand and tell me a job well done for what I do. *Just don't try to make more people look down on me and spit on my uniform for something I didn't do.* I don't care about an apology or any sort of contradicting article. I will still go to work tomorrow wearing the same uniform and see the same guys I have known for years. I love what I do.


This is unfortunate. I feel horrible that people can't differentiate between the (wo)man and the uniform.
Figured the Vietnam era would have taught people not to s*** on the soldier next door, just returning from Asia, who was conscripted against his will, simply because they didn't agree with the Gov't's policy.

I have nothing but respect for the American Army including the soldiers at Abu Grahib Prison. Specific soldiers crossed the lines (and REALLY crossed numerous lines) but they were punished. I don't think the uniform should be tarnished by association...that's insanity.



			
				Gimpy said:
			
		

> I'm not sure if you've read Ezra Levant's columns before, but this is his MO. Everything he writes is labelled "opinion" and as such *doesn't require him to source anything*. As a result he has been successfully sued several times for libel. Most notably for *stating that George Soros collaborated with Nazis as a child* which caused Sun Media to issue an apology and a retraction.


Not familiar with the columns but wow..just WOW! [at the highlighted above]


----------



## George Wallace (27 Jun 2011)

mad dog 2020 said:
			
		

> Levant: Where’s the apology?
> Ezra Levant
> Sunday, June 26, 2011, 2:00:30 AM
> For years, irresponsible left-wing extremists have smeared our Canadian Forces in Afghanistan, accusing our Canadian men and women of .......................................



And the LINK to this quote?  Or is this all your words?


----------



## mariomike (27 Jun 2011)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> And the LINK to this quote?  Or is this all your words?



http://www.ottawasun.com/2011/06/24/levant-wheres-the-apology


----------



## Redeye (27 Jun 2011)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> And the LINK to this quote?  Or is this all your words?



Levant is a joke.  He's a right wing blowhard moron who resorts to the most contemptible tactics in "debate".  Disagree with him?  You must be some kind of antisemite?  Call him out for lying (like he did about George Soros until he got sued and told sternly to STFU)?  Antisemitism?  It's ridiculous.

And the single worst smear against Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan, in my opinion, came from another Sun Media hack, Michael Coren, in "Caring for Karine".  

http://www.torontosun.com/comment/columnists/michael_coren/2009/04/18/9153761-sun.html

It includes idiotic statements like "Can we really imagine for a moment that if a group of Taliban tribesmen rushed a trench or an encampment this poor young woman could fight them off, could deal with the thrusts of their long knives and heavy clubs?" 

Long knives and heavy clubs?!

What the hell?

The opposition, WRT to detainee handling, did its job.  And yes, it showed that the CF did its job.  That's alright in my books.  There was cause for concern among many in the public and they demanded answers.  And got them.  There's nothing wrong with that in my book.


----------



## mariomike (27 Jun 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> And the single worst smear against Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan, in my opinion, came from another Sun Media hack, Michael Coren, in "Caring for Karine".



Topic: Michael Coren: "Caring for Karine" ( 5 pages ):
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/85540.0.html?PHPSESSID=ngqji2m11endkgg8bas5btgus4


----------



## Radar114 (27 Jun 2011)

The whole paragraph in the ref to the long knives and clubs is a terrible slash at us.  He tears down the training that the soldier received before she went in that she can't do the job and then attempts to drive a wedge, it seems to me, that male troops won't risk their lives to save an under attack, isolated soldier who is a female.

Freedom of speech is all that is.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (27 Jun 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> Levant is a joke.  He's a right wing blowhard moron who resorts to the most contemptible tactics in "debate".  Disagree with him?  You must be some kind of antisemite?  Call him out for lying (like he did about George Soros until he got sued and told sternly to STFU)?  Antisemitism?  It's ridiculous.
> 
> And the single worst smear against Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan, in my opinion, came from another Sun Media hack, Michael Coren, in "Caring for Karine".
> 
> ...



I'll take Levant or Coren any day and trump you with the loony Left's Heather Malik.

As for the Opposition doing their jobs? You'd have to be deaf & blind not to see that this really had absolutely nothing to do with poor Taliban detainees and everything to do with trying to embarass the CPC and embroil them in scandal, at the detriment of the CF.

There were few in the actual public that gave a flying rat's ass what happened to Timmy and all the polls at the time showed that. The only false concern came from pouty whiny left wing politicos, and as stated, not for any sense of decency for the prisoners.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (27 Jun 2011)

recceguy said:
			
		

> I'll take Levant or Coren any day and trump you with the loony Left's Heather Malik.



Hear, hear! Levant or Coren, no matter how much they twist their articles, are at least dealing with reality. Malik, on the other hand, is so out to lunch, that I think she actually lives in another alternate dimension.


----------



## Edward Campbell (27 Jun 2011)

recceguy said:
			
		

> I'll take Levant or Coren any day and trump you with the loony Left's Heather Malik.
> ...




They, Levant and Malik, alike, are exercising a freedom that people like you and I, and many, many members here, defended, defend today and will defend in the future. My, personal solution to most of them, including Levant, Coren and Malik, is to ignore them - as i try to ignore most people with very, very low IQs.

But: the more I deplore what they say the greater the legal and, sometimes, physical protection that I demand, from the state, for them. Freedom of expression - even, actually especially the expression that I find most reprehensible - is a precious right in a liberal society like our. It is worth defending; I think Malik and Coren are, being kind, the scum of the earth, but I want them to be able to spout their nonsense from the rooftops and I want us all to defend their right to do it, too.


----------



## Redeye (27 Jun 2011)

recceguy said:
			
		

> I'll take Levant or Coren any day and trump you with the loony Left's Heather Malik.



You mean Heather Mallick?  Yeah, I dismiss her about as easily as I do Coren and Levant, opposite polls, same level of idiocy.  They have a right to their opinions, and I have the right to mock and dismiss them.  I'd rather it all happen publicly.



			
				recceguy said:
			
		

> As for the Opposition doing their jobs? You'd have to be deaf & blind not to see that this really had absolutely nothing to do with poor Taliban detainees and everything to do with trying to embarass the CPC and embroil them in scandal, at the detriment of the CF.
> 
> There were few in the actual public that gave a flying rat's *** what happened to Timmy and all the polls at the time showed that. The only false concern came from pouty whiny left wing politicos, and as stated, not for any sense of decency for the prisoners.



There were quite a few, enough that made noise enough to get the opposition to demand it.  Again, remember all that talk about "transparent" and "accountable" government?  That's what was exercised.  If we're going to claim some manner of moral high ground in how we deal with "detestable murderers and scum bags", then we have to be ready to prove it.  And the investigation did.  Great.  That doesn't mean it was wrong to do it.  As to "the detriment of the CF", in what way?  We are entrusted with a great deal of authority and responsibility by the public, and apparently were able to demonstrate we deserve it.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (27 Jun 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> You mean Heather Mallick?  Yeah, I dismiss her about as easily as I do Coren and Levant, opposite polls, same level of idiocy.  They have a right to their opinions, and I have the right to mock and dismiss them.  I'd rather it all happen publicly.
> 
> There were quite a few, enough that made noise enough to get the opposition to demand it.  Again, remember all that talk about "transparent" and "accountable" government?  That's what was exercised.  If we're going to claim some manner of moral high ground in how we deal with "detestable murderers and scum bags", then we have to be ready to prove it.  And the investigation did.  Great.  That doesn't mean it was wrong to do it.  As to "the detriment of the CF", in what way?  We are entrusted with a great deal of authority and responsibility by the public, and apparently were able to demonstrate we deserve it.



Meaning that, the Opposition would have hung the CF out to dry if they found a wedge to further their agenda of embarassing the CPC. The Opposition does not care about the job the CF does or what moral ground they stand on, only that they are an arm of the sitting government and, therefore, another means of attacking said gov't.


----------



## Redeye (27 Jun 2011)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Meaning that, the Opposition would have hung the CF out to dry if they found a wedge to further their agenda of embarassing the CPC. The Opposition does not care about the job the CF does or what moral ground they stand on, only that they are an arm of the sitting government and, therefore, another means of attacking said gov't.



How so?  They would have used it to go after the government that sets the policy - not the CF who executed it.  And franklly, had anything been found, I'd want it to have been addressed fully, publicly.


----------



## kawa11 (27 Jun 2011)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Meaning that, the Opposition would have hung the CF out to dry if they found a wedge to further their agenda of embarassing the CPC. The Opposition does not care about the job the CF does or what moral ground they stand on, only that they are an arm of the sitting government and, therefore, another means of attacking said gov't.


And your comment furthers proves a point.
By refusing to let the opposition review the documents and do their job it can then be used against them when they do ask for them - which they shouldn't have had to ask for to begin with.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (27 Jun 2011)

kawa11 said:
			
		

> And your comment furthers proves a point.
> By refusing to let the opposition review the documents and do their job it can then be used against them when they do ask for them - which they shouldn't have had to ask for to begin with.



Whatever :

There was valid security reasons for not releasing them willy nilly like the Opposition wanted. Once those concerns were addressed, the Committee received what they asked for.


----------



## kstart (27 Jun 2011)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Meaning that, the Opposition would have hung the CF out to dry if they found a wedge to further their agenda of embarassing the CPC. The Opposition does not care about the job the CF does or what moral ground they stand on, only that they are an arm of the sitting government and, therefore, another means of attacking said gov't.



Yes, there's always political games, but this was an important matter and it was the Opposition's job to call the CPC to account.  The Opposition also represents Canadians (some of whom wrote to their MPs demanding this issue be looked at), and the Government of Canada (CPC, and Opoosition Parties) also have obligations to International Law and the treaties we have signed on to.



			
				Redeye said:
			
		

> How so?  They would have used it to go after the government that sets the policy - not the CF who executed it.  And franklly, had anything been found, I'd want it to have been addressed fully, publicly.



I watched some CPAC coverage, I think this is the correct link (I'm going by memory, b/c my computer crashed, and I've lost audio): http://www.cpac.ca/forms/index.asp?dsp=template&act=view3&pagetype=vod&hl=e&clipID=3930 (April 27, 2010 )

But I witnessed Afghan Committee meeting: O'Connor, MacKay, Cannon vs. Ujjal Dosanjh, under the 'moderation' of Peter Miliken.  I heard glorious extollations by the CPC on the honour and dignity of CF, however it seemed clear to me, they were using up time and not answering Mr. Dosanjh's questions re: Civillian government role-- essentially manipulating the time frames to answer questions, and a refusal to answer questions directly. 

In a court of law, and if Peter Miliken was acting as a judge, those CPC members would have been thrown out for contempt.  IMO, there was poor moderation by Mr. Miliken (aside from reminding members of time contraints, when answering questions), to request that the others answer directly to the questions.  It looked to me to be like a deliberate and contemptuous waste of time, deliberate evansion of direct questions.  I'm not privy to the "in house" meetings, and I'm okay about the issue of protecting CF safety out in the field.  But the Opposition had rights to those documents and all are subject to higher security clearance, obligations to protect national security and are fully accountable to uphold that duty.

I've also read documents from BC Civil Liberties Association and testimony by CF members-- it's quite a contrast vs. the monkey business of politicians, re: CF members giving straight-forward, reasonable and honest approach.   From those testimonies, I could empathize with the difficulty from the field perspective, re: handling of prisioners, the pragmatic conundrum (IMO they deserved a lot more support, and that IMO does go up to Civillian government here).  My understanding is that civillian command, finally did bring Canadian Corrections workers in, to help with monitoring and mentoring ASD.

I'm angry with what I witnessed re: House of Commons, the treatment of Richard Colvin, the politicking.  Legitimate concerns, legitimate sense of risks (as e.g. Amnesty International had been monitoring human rights abuses, long before CF arrived on the scene).  Huge defensiveness by CPC party (immature treatment, IMO of the issues, and the seriousness of such).  Red Cross as well made reports, but those steadily disregarded as invalid, as the "Taliban instruction manual" instructs to make up stuff-- regardless, investigation of conditions needed to be done, regular monitoring.  I heard, "who, what are the names, prove it. . ." -- they known damn well Red Cross can't do that, it's a safety issue re: prisoner reports.  I felt the conduct by parliamentarians to be very embarrassing, unprofessional (but what else is new).

I have a high level of trust for CF members, as highly professional, many virtues that'd put shame to most of us (civillians).  What I don't like, is if we failed to give them the support needed, to support their professionalism.  

Tying back to CBC, I think it's also important to try to separate oneself from some of the commentors, the peanut gallery, knee-jerk reactions.  Plurality of views I think is important in fostering a healthy democracy, and informed debate from which we can learn from one another.  A freedom, when honoured and with respectful discourse is an amazing gift-- it can bring out the best from one another, we have a chance to expand our views.  I know I've had conflict with others here, not a big deal (I hope not?).  I've also reflected (post-stumbling, which I do a lot of) and I try to do my best to evolve and learn.  My respect for CF on a whole has been further deepened a lot, by the great examples I've witnessed from here.   And that doesn't depend on "agreement" on things or everything.


----------



## Edward Campbell (27 Jun 2011)

There were lots of mistakes made: by both Conservative and Liberal politicians; by officials in more than one government department/agency - including Richard Colvin who, in my opinion made more than most others; by military members and by Speaker Milliken who, again in my opinion, improperly _Americanized_ our version of a parliamentary democracy.

Who is to blame? Try Ministers McCallum, Pratt and Graham and Gen (Ret'd) Hillier and a whole host of poorly qualified civil servants, led by Richard Colvin, for a start. Ministers and officials and generals, from 2006 to 2011, pretty much all _stonewalled_ while they tried to: a) do political damage control, and b) fix the problems which certainly did exist. Speaker Milliken made more serious errors in confusing the crown's rights, privileges and duties with the privileges of parliamentarians; I am pretty certain that similar issues will arise again and speakers, in Ottawa and in other parliaments around the world will _overturn_ or _amend_ Milliken's rulings.


----------



## kstart (27 Jun 2011)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> There were lots of mistakes made: by both Conservative and Liberal politicians; by officials in more than one government department/agency - including Richard Colvin who, in my opinion made more than most others; by military members and by Speaker Milliken who, again in my opinion, improperly _Americanized_ our version of a parliamentary democracy.
> 
> Who is to blame? Try Ministers McCallum, Pratt and Graham and Gen (Ret'd) Hillier and a whole host of poorly qualified civil servants, led by Richard Colvin, for a start. Ministers and officials and generals, from 2006 to 2011, pretty much all _stonewalled_ while they tried to: a) do political damage control, and b) fix the problems which certainly did exist. Speaker Milliken made more serious errors in confusing the crown's rights, privileges and duties with the privileges of parliamentarians; I am pretty certain that similar issues will arise again and speakers, in Ottawa and in other parliaments around the world will _overturn_ or _amend_ Milliken's rulings.



I didn't realize that Colvin was directly involved in the original agreement brokered under Liberal watch-- which to be fair to the CPCs, they did inherit, and it was really flawed along with newer, unanticipated complications re: NATO partners.  I also acknowledge the past tense of problems prior, and that problems were fixed (and under CPC watch).  And I didn't see Liberal members being forthcoming about owning the mistakes re: the original transfer agreement.  I just saw the surface stuff, which your perspective does make some sense of re: the stonewalling; political damage control-- it's just really hard to have respect when witnessing that, and I guess either side, when a political circus is made of a serious issue.  I'm open re-examining decisions, re: Speaker Miliken.  I just want to see a process that flows better, one that is responsive an accountable, minus the circus, would be a good thing.  Problem is our politics has de-volved (and/or it's always been to an extent, higher points and lower points in history) a bit carnivalesque, corrupt in many areas -- regardless of which ruling parties, we could use some cleaning up (e.g. applying some Democracy Watch, resolutions, www.dwatch.org).  I'll remain cautiously optimistic that good changes can come, learning from mistakes.


----------



## Edward Campbell (27 Jun 2011)

Colvin was involved in creating a _political_ problem from what was a reasonable simple bureaucratic one. He did so while engaged in a fit of self-aggrandizement.


----------



## Brad Sallows (27 Jun 2011)

If every possible issue has to be mined for political advantage by opposition parties while the government is a minority, expect defensiveness on every issue from the most trivial to the most seriously grave.  A necessary prerequisite for "serious" government is a group of emotionally and politically mature opposition parties who show a sense of proportion.  Expecting the sitting government to unilaterally disarm is unrealistic.


----------



## kstart (28 Jun 2011)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Colvin was involved in creating a _political_ problem from what was a reasonable simple bureaucratic one. He did so while engaged in a fit of self-aggrandizement.



I don't think I'm informed enough to make that judgement.  

Civillian perspective (but also about protecting life and health), but there are situations I've tried to exercise tolerance and patience and try to make do-- which was right to do to try to make the best of it, but still to carry some regret later not taking more direct action.  The are situations I have acted from conscience, which in retrospect were the right decisions, with the bonus effective good accomplished.  There are situations, I've raised the alarm and sided on the side of caution, even though I was pretty sure (intuitively?) it wasn't a problem, and I wasn't sure, so I consulted with a person with more experience than I and decided to act.  Was it foolish, could be seen that way, but I was willing to take that risk anyway rather than risk potential harm.  I can't really be the judge of another person's conscience.  I relate to distrust, and fear, panic, hypervigilance-- I try to keep it in check, by considering over-reaction or also under-reaction.  I know "rocking the boat" is not a convenient choice, there are costs, mostly personal.  Not all those decisions are about a 'hero mythology' or self-aggrandizing (but there is an emotional level, behind the best of reasoning, core values. . .?  principles?  I'm still young).   Difficult too when one finds oneself out of their own element, so it's about consulting with others with more experience, weighing perspectives, consequences, ethics, values.

I'm humble in this way, but I've also encountered histrionics, drama-queens, "personality disordered" and how that affects organizations, etc.  (Plus, I deal with my own craziness  )



			
				Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> If every possible issue has to be mined for political advantage by opposition parties while the government is a minority, expect defensiveness on every issue from the most trivial to the most seriously grave.  A necessary prerequisite for "serious" government is a group of emotionally and politically mature opposition parties who show a sense of proportion.  Expecting the sitting government to unilaterally disarm is unrealistic.



Yep, I've witnessed embarrassing moments via my "favoured team".  

CPAC, the scrums-- so much drama, and gleefulness at catching a mistake, not proportionate to the issue (immaturity)-- people stop listening when it's "cry wolf' at the drop of a pin, should chose their battles better.  

I think the standards can be raised, maybe get some better quality (maybe better quality persons avoid politics  ).  I didn't give the right Democracy Watch link that I intended, but the Canadian one: http://www.dwatch.ca/camp/camplist.htm  Strengthening the standards, regardless of minority, majority, whichever party.  I just think some of the 'games' are insulting to the intelligence of many Canadians.  Could there ever be a situation in politics where there's admisssion, "yeah, I think we do have a problem, this is the timeline through which we hope to resolve it."  I know the situation was constrained by national security issues and international contexts. . .?  I think we can do better, that's my hope.

Anyway, I didn't mean to hijack the thread.  I'll go on radio silence for now.  I'm open to reading suggestions, PM them.  Tying into CBC, I think all media outlets are capable of feeding the circus   I tend to like public broadcasting, TVO, PBS, BBC, CBC.  I like Peter Mansbridge, respect him.  The Passionate Eye, some interesting documentaries, IMO.  Great radio programs, Ideas series, etc.  I prefer these things to loud mouth radio 'talk shows', or the Reality TV junk of a lot of stations-- mind garbage, IMO (but sometimes I'm drawn to it), vexatious to the soul?   CBC also has some quality documentaries in their archives, recording Canadian history.  I guess I'm sentimental about CBC.


----------



## toyotatundra (1 Jul 2011)

A Globe and Mail article on one of the CBC journalists most often accused of political bias.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/terry-milewski-an-equal-opportunity-offender/article2082381/



> Canada suffers from an outrage shortage, CBC's senior political correspondent reports.
> 
> But don't blame Terry Milewski: If anyone can turn that shortage into a surplus, it's the cultivated 61-year-old with the bushy mustache, the unplaceable accent and the gift for antagonizing people who wish he would shut up.


----------



## Kirkhill (2 Jul 2011)

> “It's my job to try and stop people tuning out,” he says. “People imagine that the CBC is this grand public service funded entirely by taxpayer dollars, but my job is to sell ads. You won't catch me saying, certainly not on tape, that we at CBC have some grand mission to speak truth to power.”



From the article referenced by ToyotaTundra (good catch by the way   ).

And in that paragraph you may have the answer to the CBC "Bias".  In a fractured and fracturing world the ability of the CBC to deliver a reliable 8% of Canadian households (something like 6% of the ROC and 40% of Quebec via RDI? for a total of maybe 2,400,000 bodies) is a commercial asset of value.

The fact that those numbers strangely mirror my previous analysis of left wing NDP supporters and the will-of-the-wisp Quebec voter seems remarkably curious....

CBC: Socialism for fun and profit?


----------



## FSTO (4 Jul 2011)

... next time you are commenting on an event involving the Navy get someone knowledgeable about the Navy to help you. It was more than embarrassing to hear not one but two Newsworld Hosts call the Flight Deck a Bridge.  :facepalm:


----------



## Halifax Tar (5 Jul 2011)

FSTO said:
			
		

> ... next time you are commenting on an event involving the Navy get someone knowledgeable about the Navy to help you. It was more than embarrassing to hear not one but two Newsworld Hosts call the Flight Deck a Bridge.  :facepalm:



Have you never been to "Upper Canada" and had someone reply to you "We have a Navy ?" 

I'm never surprised when the CBC FUBARs something Navy, its par for the course from these wing nuts. I'm just happy they didnt call HMCS Montreal, _HMS_ Montreal.


----------



## Neill McKay (5 Jul 2011)

Ignorance of military matters is endemic throughout the media although, in fairness to them, I've been happy to see not quite so many "the HMCS"es in the last few years.


----------



## Edward Campbell (5 Jul 2011)

N. McKay said:
			
		

> Ignorance of military matters is endemic throughout the media although, in fairness to them, I've been happy to see not quite so many "the HMCS"es in the last few years.




It's not ignorance; it's idleness and it reflects a lack of respect. They cannot be bothered to get small things right, to _waste_ five minutes on fact checking, when it's _only_ the military. But it's OK, by me, because I despise journalists as innumerate twits who couldn't get real university degrees or real jobs, either. Thus I expect what I get from 95% of them: twaddle.


----------



## Strike (5 Jul 2011)

It's also a matter of the liaison (PAO or whoever it happens to be) emphasizing the importance of stating certain points and why.  Media aren't military.  They don't always understand how important certain things are.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (5 Jul 2011)

...not to mention that they had to stand back when the frigate came alongside because they would be throwing "monkey's hands" instead of heaving lines with monkey's fists. 

Also they mentioned that tugs had put the ship alongside.

 I did not see any in the pictures and, while always possible, I very much doubt it was the case. I've put enough ships alongside that coast guard wharf to know that it's one of the easiest alongside you can get: you are straight up into a four to seven knots current that parallels the wharf and you just park with power on and the wharf effect making it nearly impossible to accidentally bump into it.

I too was discussed by the report.


----------



## xena (5 Jul 2011)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> It's not ignorance; it's idleness and it reflects a lack of respect. They cannot be bothered to get small things right, to _waste_ five minutes on fact checking, when it's _only_ the military. But it's OK, by me, because I despise journalists as innumerate twits who couldn't get real university degrees or real jobs, either. Thus I expect what I get from 95% of them: twaddle.



You know, you probably shouldn't hold your frustration in so much.  Speak your mind.  Let it out.   >

Seriously though, well put, sir!


----------



## FSTO (5 Jul 2011)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> ...not to mention that they had to stand back when the frigate came alongside because they would be throwing "monkey's hands" instead of heaving lines with monkey's fists.
> 
> Also they mentioned that tugs had put the ship alongside.
> 
> ...



Yep I had to laugh when he said that. Also not to discredit any PAFO's out there but they should consult a MARS or Bosn when it comes to seamanship. 
I would suggest that someone in the PA world have an ready made email with a representative picture of all our ships; pointing out the bow, bridge, flight deck, etc. and a very short lexicon on common naval terms that they would send directly to the CTV, CBC Global anchor desk. This would do 2 things, save the media from looking like idiots (again) and save my wife listening to me rant and rave at the TV.


----------



## jollyjacktar (5 Jul 2011)

Stacked said:
			
		

> :rofl:  Did they REALLY say that? That's too funny.  Monkey hands... lol



It's the cutbacks, they could not afford fists so had to settle for hands.........


----------



## The Bread Guy (5 Jul 2011)

FSTO said:
			
		

> I would suggest that someone in the PA world have an ready made email with a representative picture of all our ships; pointing out the bow, bridge, flight deck, etc. and a very short lexicon on common naval terms that they would send directly to the CTV, CBC Global anchor desk.


Getting it to the reporters' bosses =/= getting it to the reporter covering the event.  Most editors/news directors are too busy to make copies of fact sheets for reporters and telling them, "hey, if you ever have to do a naval boat thing, remember this."  Good PAO liaison and explanation face-to-face is probably best, especially after the reporter arrives and before the event happens.


----------



## Maskell PDT883 (5 Jul 2011)

Read the last sentence for what Global News called the Navy. 

http://www.globalwinnipeg.com/Will+Kate+send+Canada+message+soldiers/5035374/story.html


----------



## chrisf (5 Jul 2011)

Maskell PDT883 said:
			
		

> Read the last sentence for what Global News called the Navy.
> 
> http://www.globalwinnipeg.com/Will+Kate+send+Canada+message+soldiers/5035374/story.html



They're also apparently holding a reception for "war bridges"


----------



## Gunner98 (6 Jul 2011)

FSTO said:
			
		

> Yep I had to laugh when he said that. Also not to discredit any PAFO's out there but they should consult a MARS or Bosn when it comes to seamanship.



And what is a PAFO?  Isn't it MARS Officer and a BOSN? (Maybe throwing stones on a public forum is unwise?) :facepalm:


----------



## FSTO (6 Jul 2011)

Simian Turner said:
			
		

> And what is a PAFO?  Isn't it MARS Officer and a BOSN? (Maybe throwing stones on a public forum is unwise?) :facepalm:



Alright then, Public Affiars Officer. And I was not throwing a stone, but if you want a subject matter expert then is it not better to go to the source?


----------



## toyotatundra (6 Jul 2011)

FSTO said:
			
		

> ... next time you are commenting on an event involving the Navy get someone knowledgeable about the Navy to help you. It was more than embarrassing to hear not one but two Newsworld Hosts call the Flight Deck a Bridge.  :facepalm:



I have a bud who works in local TV. He is required to do a wide range of stories on a large range of issues. Early morning, he might be covering a medical issue. Late morning, a legal proceeding. In the afternoon, a military story. And before he heads home from work, a report on the local synagogue. 

A lot of folk probably agree with you about the ignorance of journalists. I am wondering, however, if we can expect media generalists to be knowledgeable about the terminology of the groups they cover. 

Imagine the rabbis rolling their eyes at my friend's story confusing mikvah with mitzvah. Or two cardiologists laughing at his replacement of atherosclerosis with arteriosclerosis.


----------



## FSTO (6 Jul 2011)

I would hope that someone in the PA empire in Ottawa would have a word with the director of news at the national networks and point out the errors and offer assistence when timelines allow.


----------



## jollyjacktar (6 Jul 2011)

I still remember the time when we had Breakfast TV on Preserver prior to our deploying on NATO in 2000.  Those of us not involved in the many dog and pony spots being conducted at various locations throughout the ship were watching the live show in the main cave.  Not once but three times both on ship and in the studio the various talkling heads and johnny on the spots called us HMCS Perverter.  A slip of the tongue, yes, but we nearly split our sides laughing when they did it each time.  And for the rest of the day we were asking each other "Who's your Daddy?"


----------



## MJP (6 Jul 2011)

FSTO said:
			
		

> I would hope that someone in the PA empire in Ottawa would have a word with the director of news at the national networks and point out the errors and offer assistence when timelines allow.



I am certainly not in the PA world but have worked with them quite a few times in my short career.  In my experience they spend a good amount of time calling news agencies to correct factual errors but honestly once it is out there most agencies are not going to change much.  Joe civvy doesn't really care if it is a tank or a LAV, a bridge or a flight deck.  All they see is something military that looks cool.  The PAOs time is finite and they can't always be spending the time finding a SME if they don't know the answer themselves.  They certainly do if they have no idea how to proceed but for a routine military do-gooder story not likely.

I think that connecting with Canadians about the military is much more important than getting everything right.  Ya it might torque a few of us when they get something wrong but it is certainly better than no media coverage at all.  Canadians of all ilks hold us in pretty high regard right now (although there is some debate on if it is only an inch deep type regard) and it serves our best interest to keep em interested.


----------



## Pusser (6 Jul 2011)

Maskell PDT883 said:
			
		

> Read the last sentence for what Global News called the Navy.
> 
> http://www.globalwinnipeg.com/Will+Kate+send+Canada+message+soldiers/5035374/story.html



Perhaps a harbinger of something to come?


----------



## Pusser (6 Jul 2011)

FSTO said:
			
		

> Yep I had to laugh when he said that. Also not to discredit any PAFO's out there but they should consult a MARS or Bosn when it comes to seamanship.
> I would suggest that someone in the PA world have an ready made email with a representative picture of all our ships; pointing out the bow, bridge, flight deck, etc. and a very short lexicon on common naval terms that they would send directly to the CTV, CBC Global anchor desk. This would do 2 things, save the media from looking like idiots (again) and save my wife listening to me rant and rave at the TV.



Not to throw stones at PAFOs, but in my opinion, many of them don't have the requisite background to be credible in the fields upon which they're commenting.  Why do we have naval PAFOs providing media updates about land operations in Afghanistan?  Even if the guy is knowedgeable, the naval uniform automatically sucks away his credibility when discussing infantry operations.  The same is true of the army PAFO talking to reporters about hunting submarines.  I've always felt that the idea of taking officer candidates with journalism degrees and making them instant PAFOs is a mistake.  Every PAFO should have an operational background first and then then transfer to PAFO later.  In this way the former combat arms officer turned PAFO can give credible answers on questions of land operations, not because he read the brief before the reporters, but because he's lived it.

As an aside, I also believe that uniform colour should determine employment for everyone (i.e. cooks in ships should wear navy uniforms, sup techs in service battalions should wear army uniforms, etc).


----------



## medicineman (6 Jul 2011)

Pusser said:
			
		

> As an aside, I also believe that uniform colour should determine employment for everyone (i.e. cooks in ships should wear navy uniforms, sup techs in service battalions should wear army uniforms, etc).


  

Derailment warning.

Woohoo - I find I look a tad out of place here  >...back to the Army I go then?  Funny, wasn't it at one point almost all the PA's on submarines were Army or even worse, Air Force?  I can count on one hand how many PA's serving with Naval units on the West Coast are Navy...two fingers in fact.  One of those actually was Army and switched out when he got his Submarine Dolphins.  There's another coming to one of the boats as the Cox'n, so he'll have to change out as well.

Back to regularly scheduled programming.

MM


----------



## toyotatundra (6 Jul 2011)

MJP said:
			
		

> I think that connecting with Canadians about the military is much more important than getting everything right.  Ya it might torque a few of us when they get something wrong but it is certainly better than no media coverage at all.  Canadians of all ilks hold us in pretty high regard right now (although there is some debate on if it is only an inch deep type regard) and it serves our best interest to keep em interested.



Television is, at the best of times, a predominantly visual and emotional medium. Detailed, accurate news reporting is valuable. However, I don't know how many minds are changed through rational discourse.  I can't speak for others, but as a recent recruit, I can tell you that it wasn't technical news reporting which led to my decision to sign up. Rather it was seeing images of soldiers and tanks, flags waving, and bag pipes playing. My response and motives were to a substantial degree, visual and emotional. "How courageous they are" "I want to be as tough as that guy" "Man, those tanks are cool."


----------



## aesop081 (6 Jul 2011)

Pusser said:
			
		

> In this way the former combat arms officer turned PAFO can give credible answers on questions of land operations, not because he read the brief before the reporters, but because he's lived it.



Even better, stop putting PAOs in from of the media to answer questions. Put the commanders/those involved in front of the media to answer questions. The PAOs should only be there to prepare and advise them on how to respond to the media.


----------



## The Bread Guy (6 Jul 2011)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Even better, stop putting PAOs in from of the media to answer questions. Put the commanders/those involved in front of the media to answer questions. The PAOs should only be there to prepare and advise them on how to respond to the media.


For the WIN!  PAO's are good, but nothing beats the SME.


----------



## Strike (6 Jul 2011)

Pusser said:
			
		

> Not to throw stones at PAFOs, but in my opinion, many of them don't have the requisite background to be credible in the fields upon which they're commenting.  Why do we have naval PAFOs providing media updates about land operations in Afghanistan?  Even if the guy is knowedgeable, the naval uniform automatically sucks away his credibility when discussing infantry operations.  The same is true of the army PAFO talking to reporters about hunting submarines.  I've always felt that the idea of taking officer candidates with journalism degrees and making them instant PAFOs is a mistake.  Every PAFO should have an operational background first and then then transfer to PAFO later.  In this way the former combat arms officer turned PAFO can give credible answers on questions of land operations, not because he read the brief before the reporters, but because he's lived it.



Pusser, what about those PAffOs (note the extra "f", or PAO as they prefer to be referred to as) who may have spent the majority of their careers on an Army base, working to support the Army but are wearing an Air Force uniform?  (This is a trick question...)  The point is, if someone is going to be talking about sub hunting or advance to contact, it should be a SME, not a PAO.  And if it is the PAO then there are really only two reasons that this is happening:
1 -- The PAO likes to be in front of the camera (and this should follow up with said PAO being briefed about what their job really is); or
2 -- No SME wanted to talk to the media (unfortunately, the more likely cause), which meant that the 'someone' stuck answering the questions is the PAO.

As for the journalism types who come in, I used to think the same as you, until I finished a nine month course and saw that those with the military background can learn just as much as the DEOs can learn from us.

(Milnews and Cdn Aviator, I agree with you 100%!)


----------



## The Bread Guy (6 Jul 2011)

Strike said:
			
		

> 2 -- *No SME wanted to talk to the media* (unfortunately, the more likely cause), which meant that the 'someone' stuck answering the questions is the PAO.


Very good point - SME's (or their bosses) can say no in a way that PAO's can't.  And that doesn't just happen in the military, either.


----------



## Pusser (8 Jul 2011)

Strike said:
			
		

> Pusser, what about those PAffOs (note the extra "f", or PAO as they prefer to be referred to as) who may have spent the majority of their careers on an Army base, working to support the Army but are wearing an Air Force uniform?  (This is a trick question...)  The point is, if someone is going to be talking about sub hunting or advance to contact, it should be a SME, not a PAO.  And if it is the PAO then there are really only two reasons that this is happening:
> 1 -- The PAO likes to be in front of the camera (and this should follow up with said PAO being briefed about what their job really is); or
> 2 -- No SME wanted to talk to the media (unfortunately, the more likely cause), which meant that the 'someone' stuck answering the questions is the PAO.
> 
> ...



I completely agree that it is the SME who should be doing the talking, but that unfortunately, is too often not the case.  Perhaps that's the problem that really needs to be fixed?

Further to my point on uniforms, we must remember that TV is a visual medium.  It's not just what you say, but how you look that conveys the message.  A neuro-surgeon can go on TV and will be seen as credible when providing commentary on his area of expertise in either a suit or scrubs, even if he's wrong.  But if you dress him up in a clown suit, he will instantly lose credibility and no one will take his commentary seriously, even if he is absoloutely correct.  McLuhan was right, the medium is the message.  I'm not saying that naval PAOs are not capable of commenting on land operations.  I'm only saying that the uniform they are wearing can possibly detract from their credibility and what the public perceives as a result.


----------



## Strike (8 Jul 2011)

Pusser said:
			
		

> I'm only saying that the uniform they are wearing can possibly detract from their credibility and what the public perceives as a result.



I completely understand where you're coming from, but unfortunately there is no purple uniform for PAOs to wear and it makes no sense having them change the colour of uniform every time they get posted.  It's just something that has to be accepted.

Sure, it would be nice to post Army PAOs at Army units, Navy PAOs at Navy units, etc, but then you don't get a very well-rounded PAO which hurts the CF as a whole, especially during joint (Isn't everything joint these days?) operations.


----------



## CountDC (8 Jul 2011)

medicineman said:
			
		

> Derailment warning.
> 
> There's another coming to one of the boats as the Cox'n, so he'll have to change out as well.
> 
> ...



As Cox'n?  Didn't think that was possible.  Why would he have to change out?


----------



## OldSolduer (8 Jul 2011)

I just received a call from a local station wanting me to comment on the end of the combat mission in Afghanistan. As a serving member, I declined.


----------



## medicineman (8 Jul 2011)

CountDC said:
			
		

> As Cox'n?  Didn't think that was possible.  Why would he have to change out?



Yup - a previous Cox'n of VIC was a PA too.  Because it's a Navy position, if they take the job and aren't Navy, they have to change out.  They just aren't the boat's PA anymore, that's all.  Don't forget, medical is kind of a secondary duty for a submariner PA - they're a watchkeepr first.

MM


----------



## FSTO (8 Jul 2011)

Strike said:
			
		

> I completely understand where you're coming from, but unfortunately there is no purple uniform for PAOs to wear and it makes no sense having them change the colour of uniform every time they get posted.  It's just something that has to be accepted.
> 
> Sure, it would be nice to post Army PAOs at Army units, Navy PAOs at Navy units, etc, but then you don't get a very well-rounded PAO which hurts the CF as a whole, especially during joint (Isn't everything joint these days?) operations.


To many in the Navy, Joint means the Army is running the show. ;D


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (8 Jul 2011)

Have things changed from  my days? PA are Non-commissioned officers?

Only Chief Petty Officers (or, I suppose Chief Warrant Officers) can be Cox'ns.

IMO, the way to go with PA's if we want to maintain their "professional" appearance is to issue them with a set of uniforms from each element. This way, they can put on whichever one happens to be appropriate to the day's affairs they handle. A bit cumbersome, but potentially worth it for image's sake.  Besides, IMHO, they should only need DEU's - none of that nonsense of wearing "combat" clothing unless they are specifically "at the front". Rant on - Nothing galls me more than seeing people giving public addresses or briefings or press conference on base or at headquarters dressed in "combats". In the field is another matter, but have you ever seen one of the American or French or British senior officer giving such a presentation at an HQ or base office dressed in anything else than service dress? (Or for that matter, when was the last time you saw a Pentagon press conference given by uniformed personnel NOT wearing a tie? I can't recall one)  - Rant off.


----------



## The Bread Guy (8 Jul 2011)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Rant on - Nothing galls me more than seeing people giving public addresses or briefings or press conference on base or at headquarters dressed in "combats". In the field is another matter, but have you ever seen one of the American or French or British senior officer giving such a presentation at an HQ or base office dressed in anything else than service dress? (Or for that matter, *when was the last time you saw a Pentagon press conference given by uniformed personnel NOT wearing a tie?* I can't recall one)  - Rant off.


At the Pentagon most of the time, it's ties-on-in-fancy-dress, but never say never, either - note official pix from the Pentagon's briefing room (no, they're not all from the same briefing  ) :


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (8 Jul 2011)

I stand corrected.

To atone, I shall drop and give you an extra 30 tonight when I come back from my jog.


----------



## The Bread Guy (8 Jul 2011)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> I stand corrected.
> 
> To atone, I shall drop and give you an extra 30 tonight when I come back from my jog.


No need - it appears to happen (based on a rough look at the assembled PR pix) only about 5-10% of the time, so you're still _mostly_ right  ;D


----------



## Neill McKay (8 Jul 2011)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Have things changed from  my days? PA are Non-commissioned officers?



I read PA to mean physician assistant.


----------



## Strike (8 Jul 2011)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Have things changed from  my days? PA are Non-commissioned officers?
> 
> Only Chief Petty Officers (or, I suppose Chief Warrant Officers) can be Cox'ns.



They were referring to PAs in the sense of Physician's Assistant (Damn!  Beat me to it!), not PA as in Public Affairs. The closest to NCMs being PAOs are the people from Army News (oooh, I just got a flash of a certain geo-tech in my head.   :-\ )


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (8 Jul 2011)

Thank you all for clearing my confusion. I my days, the trade was called Med A's for Medical assistant.

To confuse things more, in the Navy we called then tiffies.


----------



## Neill McKay (8 Jul 2011)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Thank you all for clearing my confusion. I my days, the trade was called Med A's for Medical assistant.



Isn't it one of those trades that changes with rank, like stokers (mechanic-technician-artificer)?

If so, could someone outline the progression please?


----------



## aesop081 (8 Jul 2011)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> I my days, the trade was called Med A's for Medical assistant.



Med A is now called Med Tech. PAs are a different group.


----------



## PMedMoe (8 Jul 2011)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Med A is now called Med Tech. PAs are a different group.



PAs are Med Techs who have undergone the two-year Physician's Assistant training.  Once they are done, they get a new MOSID.

Almost all medical trades have the same first five numbers of the MOSID.  It is the second, two number sequence that differentiates the various trades:

Med Tech, PA, PMed Tech, Lab Tech, X-Ray Tech, etc.....

Gets a little confusing sometimes.   :nod:


----------



## medicineman (8 Jul 2011)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Have things changed from  my days? PA are Non-commissioned officers?
> 
> Only Chief Petty Officers (or, I suppose Chief Warrant Officers) can be Cox'ns.
> 
> IMO, the way to go with PA's if we want to maintain their "professional" appearance is to issue them with a set of uniforms from each element.



PSSST - PA's are Physician Assistants - they are WO's and above - no more 6B  Sgts for those that remember them.  And yeah, Cox'n of subs are C2's normally - if they've got the requisite submarine time and the rank, they can be asked if they want the job.  I do have uniforms for every element, though my Hair Force stuff is still that hideous blue.

PA(ff) O's are Public Affairs Officers and yes, hold a commission.

Didn't think you were THAT old  ;D.

MM

Edit - sorry I'm beating a dead horse.  I'll hang my head in shame now.


----------



## a_majoor (9 Jul 2011)

A twofer: the CBC reapplies for its licence and a response:





> CBC gets timeout to plead for more cash
> By MARK DUNN, Senior National Reporter, QMI Agency
> 
> 
> ...



http://canadianconservatives.wordpress.com/2011/07/09/revoke-cbcs-must-carry-license/



> *Revoke CBC’s “must carry” license*
> 
> Posted: July 9, 2011 by ferrethouse in Uncategorized
> 
> The CBC has been operating without a license in Canada for 12 years. It is expected to apply for a license next June after lobbying weak-kneed Conservative MP James Moore for more money. Not only should their funding level be reduced but they should only be granted the same license that Sun News was given last year. If Canadians really value the state broadcaster than the CBC has nothing to worry about. Canadians will sign up for the service in droves.


----------



## kawa11 (9 Jul 2011)

Hey, just like every other proud Canadian, I don't watch the CBC.
But damned if I want to lose it!

I feel it is a strong part of our identity and does feature the vast majority of Canadian (and British) content seen by Joe Canada.
Just wish the Gov't would run it a little tighter - or at least have a larger say in how the money is spent - similar to TVO in Ontario..


----------



## DBA (9 Jul 2011)

I think it would be good to directly link fiscal accountability with taxpayer funded budgets. Any taxpayer dollars not accounted for in a detailed public disclosure of spending are automatically removed from the next year's budget for that crown corporation. If they want to keep the spending details "proprietary" they can do it with their own money and not taxpayers. If they want to stonewall disclosure then they lose their budget and are shutdown.


----------



## Good2Golf (9 Jul 2011)

DBA said:
			
		

> I think it would be good to directly link fiscal accountability with taxpayer funded budgets. Any taxpayer dollars not accounted for in a detailed public disclosure of spending are automatically removed from the next year's budget for that crown corporation. If they want to keep the spending details "proprietary" they can do it with their own money and not taxpayers. If they want to stonewall disclosure then they lose their budget and are shutdown.



:nod:


Heck, even CSE has to disclose a budget, albeit compartmentalized and redacted, to the public.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (9 Jul 2011)

kawa11 said:
			
		

> Hey, just like every other proud Canadian, I don't watch the CBC.
> But damned if I want to lose it!
> 
> I feel it is a strong part of our identity *and does feature the vast majority of Canadian *(and British) content seen by Joe Canada.
> Just wish the Gov't would run it a little tighter - or at least have a larger say in how the money is spent - similar to TVO in Ontario..



Name 3 shows.  Seriously. Off the top your head, without using Google.


----------



## toyotatundra (9 Jul 2011)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Name 3 shows.  Seriously. Off the top your head, without using Google.



I don't agree with all this bashing of Canadian television programming. I can name at least three shows that I watch on CBC:

The Simpsons
Arrested Development
Doctor Who


----------



## aesop081 (9 Jul 2011)

kawa11 said:
			
		

> does feature the vast majority of *Canadian (and British) content* seen by Joe Canada.





			
				SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Name 3 shows.  Seriously. Off the top your head, without using Google.





			
				toyotatundra said:
			
		

> I don't agree with all this bashing of Canadian television programming. I can name at least three shows that I watch on CBC:
> 
> The Simpsons
> Arrested Development
> Doctor Who



None of these shows are "Canadian Content".


----------



## toyotatundra (9 Jul 2011)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> None of these shows are "Canadian Content".



What an amazing coincidence!   ;D


----------



## PuckChaser (9 Jul 2011)

I watch more "Canadian content" shows on channels other than CBC.... why did CTV come up with the idea for Flashpoint and not CBC? Seems like the perfect Canadian show for the CBC to develop but a private broadcaster grabbed the idea first. I guess $1.5 billion doesn't by much in the way of imagination and creativity.


----------



## DBA (9 Jul 2011)

Two of them are also Fox programs. Guess the CBC is the "Fox North" for regular programs like Sun NEWS is supposed to be "Fox North" for news programming.


----------



## PuckChaser (9 Jul 2011)

DBA said:
			
		

> Two of them are also Fox programs. Guess the CBC is the "Fox North" for regular programs like Sun NEWS is supposed to be "Fox North" for news programming.



Global runs all the Fox programming in Canada at the same timeslots. CBC just runs them as reruns to gain revenues.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (9 Jul 2011)

Well MM, what do you think the first three letters of my  username stand for ???

Actually, I just think I joined when I was very young - I may have been one of the last boy seaman!


----------



## Fishbone Jones (9 Jul 2011)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I watch more "Canadian content" shows on channels other than CBC.... why did CTV come up with the idea for Flashpoint and not CBC? Seems like the perfect Canadian show for the CBC to develop but a private broadcaster grabbed the idea first. I guess $1.5 billion doesn't by much in the way of imagination and creativity.



CBC won't carry or develop something like that because it involves guns. CBC and it's liebrals say 'Guns are bad. If we don't talk about them they will go away.'


----------



## kawa11 (10 Jul 2011)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Name 3 shows.  Seriously. Off the top your head, without using Google.


I literally 'laughed out loud' because the first one to come to mind was "CBC news"

Mercer Report
George Stroumbo Tonight
Marketplace



			
				PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I watch more "Canadian content" shows on channels other than CBC.... why did CTV come up with the idea for Flashpoint and not CBC? Seems like the perfect Canadian show for the CBC to develop but a private broadcaster grabbed the idea first. I guess $1.5 billion doesn't by much in the way of imagination and creativity.


I find CTV to be an anomaly though. Before Corner Gas became a hit the only Canadian content I remember them playing was 'CFTO newshour' and 'Canadian Idol'


----------



## Good2Golf (10 Jul 2011)

kawa11 said:
			
		

> I find CTV to be an anomaly though. Before Corner Gas became a hit the only Canadian content I remember them playing was 'CFTO newshour' and 'Canadian Idol'




Don't forget "Definition*"!  ;D


* extra WIN for the future CTV news guy in this clip!


----------



## SeaKingTacco (10 Jul 2011)

Good- you can name 3.

Is that worth 1 billion tax dollars annually?

In the spirit of full disclosure, I am a big CBC radio fan, which is completely non-commercial.  The TV division, I think, gets subsidized in the first place,  then sucks up ad revenue in the second place and finally, does not seem to be able to produce a consistently high quality lineup of Canadian programming, without resorting to US reruns.

In my world, we would either kill the TV division outright, or force the TV division to operate without ad revenues- much like PBS in the US.  Those who want it, will be more than happy to use their own money to keep it operating.


----------



## Good2Golf (10 Jul 2011)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Good- you can name 3.
> 
> Is that worth 1 billion tax dollars annually?
> 
> ...



SKT, I fully agree with you.  Perhaps because I am now approaching the age I remember my father doing doing so, but I now occasionally listen to CBC Radio in the car*.

Cheers
G2G


* The exception being an immediate change of radio operating mode to the OFF-mode for when "Q" with Jean "I love me" Ghomeshi comes on...  :-X


----------



## Edward Campbell (10 Jul 2011)

If one reads the Broadcasting Act very narrowly then one might, reasonably, conclude that CBC TV is not necessary. There are some objectives (§3) that the CBC appears, to me, to do while the private broadcasters do not. But it also appears, to me, that CBC Radio does all those things, by itself.

Perhaps the proper target for budget cutters in CBC TV – English and French, over the air and cable. Get rid of that and the CBC budget might seem like money well spent.

CBC Radio has a _bias_, too – but so does CTV and Global and, and, and ... bias, of some sort, is human and broadcasting is a very human activity. Most of us, generally, oppose bias when it's not *our* bias – people who share our biases are thoughtful, well informed and so on.

Getting rid of the all of the CBC would require a major rethink of the Broadcasting Act which has served us well for nearly 80 years.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (10 Jul 2011)

CBC Radio, I have no quarrel with and will gladly let my tax dollars keep supporting that.

CBC TV has to get out of my pocket. I don't like them and, more importantly, don't agree with them. I shouldn't have to pay for them. If they can't exist on their own (ad revenues), they cease to exist. 

Although I'm willing to let them try the PBS route that ST suggested, which sounds like a fair and workable compromise for those that want us to keep Mother Corp.


----------



## Neill McKay (10 Jul 2011)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> In my world, we would either kill the TV division outright, or force the TV division to operate without ad revenues- much like PBS in the US.  Those who want it, will be more than happy to use their own money to keep it operating.



Why not keep it and allow it to operate on ad revenue, but without subsidy?  I'm not suggesting that that's the best course of action, but I was curious why you didn't include that option since it seems to be a middle ground between the two you did mention.

(PBS, by the way, does get public funding through the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.)


----------



## Monsoon (10 Jul 2011)

N. McKay said:
			
		

> (PBS, by the way, does get public funding through the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.)


The difference being that the CPB provides funding mostly to independent PBS affiliate stations - PBS is actually a network of independent stations that share content and augment it with local programming. CBC TV used to run something like this, but because the organization was centralized, as the belt was tightened the central bureaucracy kept the cash and the local mandate was stripped down to a crummy 30-minute regional news broadcast a day.

What I'd propose:

- Spin off CBC Radio/Radio Canada as an independent non-profit corporation and bump up it's budget significantly;
- Restructure CBC TV as a a granting corporation along the lines of CPB and cut its federal subsidy from $1B to $400M (about what the CPB gets from the government of a country 10 times larger than Canada), with a mandate to produce, sponsor and distribute educational programming; and
- Spin off the individual CBC TV stations as non-profit corporations managed by a local board of directors and run on the understanding that whatever it can't earn in ad revenue and CBC grants, it will have to make up from donations.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (10 Jul 2011)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I watch more "Canadian content" shows on channels other than CBC.... why did CTV come up with the idea for Flashpoint and not CBC? Seems like the perfect Canadian show for the CBC to develop but a private broadcaster grabbed the idea first. I guess $1.5 billion doesn't by much in the way of imagination and creativity.



The problem is that the CBC knows its going to receive the subsidy no matter what. So, they have no incentive to go out and look for new ideas. The managers over at the CTV and Global on the other hand have to answer to their shareholders; no profit and you're out on the street.


----------



## toyotatundra (10 Jul 2011)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Getting rid of the all of the CBC would require a major rethink of the Broadcasting Act which has served us well for nearly 80 years.



I do not know if the problem is the CBC per se. Both the UK and the US have excellent public sector/non-profit broadcasters. In fact, I would argue that the BBC and PBS produce much better shows than commercial networks with their formulaic bubble gum. (Oh look, the 22 year old blonde, mini-skirt wearing police officer is going to apprehend the serial killer all by herself!) 

The problem seems to be that CBC TV is not performing as well as its foreign cousins. And that would be an issue of management and organization, rather than funding.


----------



## Neill McKay (10 Jul 2011)

toyotatundra said:
			
		

> I do not know if the problem is the CBC per se. Both the UK and the US have excellent public sector/non-profit broadcasters. In fact, I would argue that the BBC and PBS produce much better shows than commercial networks with their formulaic bubble gum. (Oh look, the 22 year old blonde, mini-skirt wearing police officer is going to apprehend the serial killer all by herself!)
> 
> The problem seems to be that CBC TV is not performing as well as its foreign cousins. And that would be an issue of management and organization, rather than funding.



Could be that as well.  There's no question in my mind that some of the best television in the English-speaking world comes from the BBC and PBS.  CBC has its gems as well, but I don't have a sense of what fraction of the broadcast day they occupy.  My gut says something less than would be the case with PBS.

I remember someone floating the idea of a radio/TV licence fee in Canada a few years ago (similar to the one that funds the BBC) and, to nobody's surprise, getting little if any traction.


----------



## Kirkhill (10 Jul 2011)

Don't forget the Aussies.  I was just telling the missus last night - while watching an Aussie production - that the Aussies seem to be better at telling stories than Canadians.  I don't know why that is - I don't accept the explanation that the Yanks pull all our talent.  Canada is making up ground but Aussie acting seems more natural more of the time.


----------



## a_majoor (10 Jul 2011)

toyotatundra said:
			
		

> I do not know if the problem is the CBC per se. Both the UK and the US have excellent public sector/non-profit broadcasters. In fact, I would argue that the BBC and PBS produce much better shows than commercial networks with their formulaic bubble gum. (Oh look, the 22 year old blonde, mini-skirt wearing police officer is going to apprehend the serial killer all by herself!)
> 
> The problem seems to be that CBC TV is not performing as well as its foreign cousins. And that would be an issue of management and organization, rather than funding.



As pointed out, management has zero incentive to produce anything interesting or attractive to audiences, they get that huge subsidy even though the veiwing audience is only @ 7% of Canadian viewers. Now if the model was pay per view cable or getting donations like PBS needs to solicit, then they would have a direct incentive to get audience share or die. If the issue is to promote "Canadian content" or whatever, their licence can be written to specifically forbid the CBC from purchasing or broadcasting shows that were produced overseas, forcing management to find the best Canadian content money could buy, or die through lack of viewership.

If you think this is somehow unfair, consider that every private network on Earth needs to attract a viewing audience and has incentive to find shows viewers want to watch, why should CBC managment be paid to broadcast stuff nobody is willing to watch?


----------



## toyotatundra (10 Jul 2011)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> As pointed out, management has zero incentive to produce anything interesting or attractive to audiences, they get that huge subsidy even though the veiwing audience is only @ 7% of Canadian viewers. Now if the model was pay per view cable or getting donations like PBS needs to solicit, then they would have a direct incentive to get audience share or die.



Well, that is certainly the conventional free market assumption. However, human behavior has a tendency of ignoring economic theory. After all, the BBC produces excellent programs, even though it receives a huge subsidy as well.


----------



## Neill McKay (11 Jul 2011)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> As pointed out, management has zero incentive to produce anything interesting or attractive to audiences, they get that huge subsidy even though the veiwing audience is only @ 7% of Canadian viewers. Now if the model was pay per view cable or getting donations like PBS needs to solicit, then they would have a direct incentive to get audience share or die.
> 
> [...]
> 
> If you think this is somehow unfair, consider that every private network on Earth needs to attract a viewing audience and has incentive to find shows viewers want to watch, why should CBC managment be paid to broadcast stuff nobody is willing to watch?



If it were all about market share then, in theory, advertising revenue would look after everything and we might well ask if there were any point to having public broadcasters at all.  But a public broadcaster presents programming that might not fit that economic model.  Seven per cent, if that's what it is, is not "nobody".  There is, presumably, some happy medium where a public broadcaster is meeting a need that is too small to be economical for a purely ad-driven private broadcaster to meet, but not presenting programming that is so unpopular as to generate a truly trivial audience.


----------



## Brad Sallows (11 Jul 2011)

>There is, presumably, some happy medium where a public broadcaster is meeting a need that is too small to be economical for a purely ad-driven private broadcaster to meet, but not presenting programming that is so unpopular as to generate a truly trivial audience.

Stipulated, but who if not the audience (consumers) should pay for it?  It is entertainment, not the Supreme Court or Canadian Forces.  If I like monster truck shows, why should I have to pay for my monster truck shows AND pay for someone else's broadcast programming?


----------



## Redeye (11 Jul 2011)

recceguy said:
			
		

> CBC TV has to get out of my pocket. I don't like them and, more importantly, don't agree with them. I shouldn't have to pay for them. If they can't exist on their own (ad revenues), they cease to exist.



I think SunTV is some sort of sick, pathetic joke.  Why do I have to pay for them?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (11 Jul 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> I think SunTV is some sort of sick, pathetic joke.  Why do I have to pay for them?



You have a choice. With Mother Corp, you don't.


----------



## dapaterson (11 Jul 2011)

On a related note:  A young CTV journalist (formerly of the CTV) has quit, and posted a 3000 word essay on why:

http://kainagata.com/2011/07/08/why-i-quit-my-job/

Lots to chew on.  My favourite bit, from the section titled "The problem with the CBC":



> It’s a vicious cycle, and it creates things like the Kate and Will show. Wall-to-wall, breaking-news coverage of a stage-managed, spoon-fed celebrity visit, justified by the couple’s symbolic relationship to a former colony, codified in a document most Canadians have never read (and one province has never signed). On a weekend where there was real news happening in Bangkok, Misrata, Athens, Washington, and around the world, what we saw instead was a breathless gaggle of normally credible journalists, gushing in live hit after live hit about how the prince is young and his wife is pretty. And the public broadcaster led the charge.




And, of interest to the readership here, he identifies himself as a former member fo the infantry reserve.


----------



## Kirkhill (11 Jul 2011)

So this self-described "leftist" (as defined by his policy choices if not the assumption of the label) is concerned that the media is being tarred as being "leftist".....

Edit: and for someone who doesn't own a TV he seems to put an awful lot of stock in Jon Stewart - who, I would assert, is the Canadian Left's antidote to those right wing views that concern them so.    So many anti-American Canadians seem to find Stewart a useful support for their positions on both American and Canadian society.


----------



## Neill McKay (11 Jul 2011)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> If I like monster truck shows, why should I have to pay for my monster truck shows AND pay for someone else's broadcast programming?



Because the role of government is to do things that can't be economically done by individuals (or other entities) acting alone.


----------



## Strike (11 Jul 2011)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> On a related note:  A young CTV journalist (formerly of the CTV) has quit, and posted a 3000 word essay on why:
> 
> http://kainagata.com/2011/07/08/why-i-quit-my-job/
> 
> ...



And here's a rebuttal to that:

http://www.vancourier.com/didn+quit/5085267/story.html


----------



## a_majoor (12 Jul 2011)

Another one of those "tell me why CBC gets a billion dollars again?" things:

http://www.oxygentax.com/2011/07/cbcs-switch-to-dtv-transmission-will.html



> *CBC's switch to DTV transmission will leave some viewers without access*
> It should read: CBC loses justification for $1.1 Billion in subsidies.
> 
> The CBC, however, argues that maintaining over-the-air signals for small numbers of viewers is not an efficient use of the broadcaster’s $1.1-billion parliamentary subsidy.
> ...



So I can _choose_ to pay for Sun TV; but now will not be able to get the CBC I am _forced_ to pay for.


----------



## Brad Sallows (12 Jul 2011)

>Because the role of government is to do things that can't be economically done by individuals (or other entities) acting alone.

I assume you mean to be facetious if TV entertainment is among the social "goods" government must act to provide.


----------



## Neill McKay (12 Jul 2011)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> I assume you mean to be facetious if TV entertainment is among the social "goods" government must act to provide.



No, I don't mean to at all -- but I certainly concede that it's not on the same level as the necessities of life or "peace, order, and good government".

But I would add that I see the role of the CBC as including the protection and promotion of Canadian culture, which I see as a different purpose from pure entertainment.  We have a much larger neighbour that has a massive output of popular culture in all media, and for most related purposes we are a small part of a single market dominated by them.  I think there is a role for the government in ensuring a Canadian voice in that market.  (There's all kinds of room to discuss whether CBC TV, as currently constituted, is doing this to maximum effect.)


----------



## Good2Golf (12 Jul 2011)

N. McKay said:
			
		

> ...But I would add that I see the role of the CBC as including the protection and promotion of Canadian culture, which I see as a different purpose from pure entertainment.  We have a much larger neighbour that has a massive output of popular culture in all media, and for most related purposes we are a small part of a single market dominated by them.  I think there is a role for the government in ensuring a Canadian voice in that market.  (There's all kinds of room to discuss whether CBC TV, as currently constituted, is doing this to maximum effect.)



The problem is that the "protection and promotion of Canadian culture" is being determined by a relatively small minority within the CBC's structure, considering their own ideals of creativity and proponency of Canadian visual arts and culture to wholly represent what is in Canadian culture's best interests -- what is and is not acceptable -- then committing funds to the support of their ideas with very little post-spending accountability regarding how well the "mission" to protect and promote Canadian  culture was accomplished.  It's a rather large "creative petty cash fund" is one thinks of it that way.  Perhaps some measures of effectiveness need to be applied to the CBC's "creative" mission, for example, linking program lines to related cultural activity, i.e. X% more Canadians attending cultural events promoted by CBC program  XXXXXX or YYYYYY, etc... ?

Regards
G2G


----------



## mariomike (12 Jul 2011)

"Wayne and Shuster" was my favorite show on CBC.
"Over their career, the humour of Wayne and Shuster was characterized by the "send-up" rather than the "put-down." Perhaps it was a reflection of how they were affected by what they saw during the war. Frank and Johnny were funny, but never cruel."

"Despite several enticing offers from the United States, Wayne and Shuster always chose to stay in Toronto. In addition to giving Canadians the confidence to do their own comedy, they spoke passionately on behalf of Canadian cultural sovereignty. In 1978, for example, Wayne told a joint luncheon of the Ottawa Men's and Women's Clubs that "an imbalanced television system has made us a nation of American watchers, totally ignorant of our own way of life. We are being robbed of our national identity. We've put Dracula in charge of the blood bank." "


----------



## GAP (13 Jul 2011)

CBC could face 5 per cent funding cut, Heritage Minister says
STEVEN CHASE OTTAWA— From Wednesday's Globe and Mail Published Tuesday, Jul. 12, 2011
Article Link

The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation could face a federal funding cut of at least 5 per cent to help Ottawa slay the deficit, Heritage Minister James Moore says.

“The CBC has to certainly do its part,” he told the CBC Radio program Q on Tuesday.

He sought to assure Canadians that the public broadcaster would be able to adjust readily.

“The idea that the CBC can’t find 5 per cent of efficiencies within the CBC to give back to the broader economic framework, I think, is silly.”

The Harper government is trying to squeeze at least $4-billion in annual savings to help eliminate the deficit by 2015, and 67 departments and agencies have been asked to draw up scenarios for cuts of 5 per cent and 10 per cent in operating expenses.

Decisions have yet to be made on which departments and agencies will face funding cuts, but Mr. Moore said he thinks the broadcaster can handle the belt-tightening. He said he met with the CBC’s board last week, and they assured him they’re ready to co-operate.

“They’re prepared to do their part and to find the savings – and make sure that CBC has the necessary funding to fulfill its mandate,” the minister said. 
More on link


----------



## Kirkhill (13 Jul 2011)

N. McKay said:
			
		

> Because the role of government is to do things that can't be economically done by individuals (or other entities) acting alone.



I had to think about this for a bit.....

I agree that government can offer economies of scale that individuals can't and thus can finance civil infrastructure and collective security that individuals couldn't afford.  And if they did the patchwork that would result would be inefficient, costly and of varied quality.  In some cases that can be managed, as in the case of the world's fleet of merchant shipping or national fleets or road and rail transport.  In other cases, like highways themselves, a unified theme works better.

But it seems to me that government overstretches and does things that just plain can't be done economically as much as people and politicians, princes and priests might wish.  Some examples would be: offering everyone a lifestyle equivalent to a President when they both retire; promising a pain free life to the age of 85 (constantly adjusted upwards);  a guarantee that you will never be allowed to fail or be harmed....


----------



## Brad Sallows (17 Jul 2011)

>But I would add that I see the role of the CBC as including the protection and promotion of Canadian culture

I read/hear that frequently.  No-one has proven the premise: that Canadian culture needs to be protected and promoted lest Canadian-ness vanish from the face of the earth.


----------



## Neill McKay (17 Jul 2011)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> No-one has proven the premise: that Canadian culture needs to be protected and promoted lest Canadian-ness vanish from the face of the earth.



Agreed... but the proof, if executed, would be pretty grim!


----------



## Good2Golf (17 Jul 2011)

N. McKay said:
			
		

> Agreed... but the proof, if executed, would be pretty grim!



Would it?  What, no more lumberjacks crooning their sweethearts while the Mounties sang chorus back-up behind them?

If a culture is so weak that governmental intervention to affect arm's-length management through a small, combative cadre of anti-interventionalistic artisans is only the way to ensure its survival...well, that doesn't speak strongly of the value of that culture, does it?  :-\


Regards
G2G


----------



## Brad Sallows (19 Jul 2011)

My statement of the premise is intended to emphasize how ridiculous it is: that the only thing standing between us and the disappearance of Canadian culture is the CBC.  People who believe that need to give their heads a shake, perhaps two or three times.  It is insulting to pretend that the CBC is any significant part of the entire body of Canadian culture.


----------



## Strike (19 Jul 2011)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> If a culture is so weak that governmental intervention to affect arm's-length management through a small, combative cadre of anti-interventionalistic artisans is only the way to ensure its survival...well, that doesn't speak strongly of the value of that culture, does it?  :-\
> 
> 
> Regards
> G2G



Wow.  I almost thought you were talking about a certain region of the country there.  Funny the similarities in the argument.


----------



## KJK (19 Jul 2011)

You know Strike, I was thinking the same thing. :nod: :nod:

KJK


----------



## Good2Golf (20 Jul 2011)

KJK said:
			
		

> You know Strike, I was thinking the same thing. :nod: :nod:
> 
> KJK



I'll bet you $12,000 that I wasn't even thinking that....


----------



## a_majoor (23 Jul 2011)

So why again is the CBC receiving a billion dollars of taxpayer money?

http://bcblue.wordpress.com/2011/07/21/cbc-wont-publish-names-or-photos-of-war-criminals/



> *CBC won’t publish names or photos of war criminals*
> July 21, 2011 — BC Blue
> 
> Even though the Canadian government has released the names of 30 suspected war criminals that are here illegally and is asking for the public’s help in locating them, the CBC refuses to publish their names or pictures:
> ...



But they still have plenty of your money for this:

http://www.stephentaylor.ca/2011/07/cbcs-75th-birthday/



> *CBC’s 75th Birthday*
> 
> Taxpayers are wrapping up yet another gift to the CBC as the state broadcaster celebrates itself.
> 
> ...



Incidentally. I loved Sun TV's mockery of the CBC with their $14 celebration.......


----------



## a_majoor (31 Jul 2011)

Well, tell me again why the CBC gets $1 billion a year?

http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/video/featured/news/868018287001/media-monitor-july-28/1084711903001

http://bcblue.wordpress.com/2011/07/28/sun-news-awesome-slap-down-of-cbcs-omalley-and-solomon/#comment-16746



> *Sun News’ awesome slap-down of CBC’s O’Malley and Solomon*
> July 28, 2011 — BC Blue
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (2 Aug 2011)

CBC "policy" about naming suspects seems to only take effect if it can somehow be used against the current government. It will be a long four years....

http://bcblue.wordpress.com/2011/08/01/cbc-policy-change-publishes-name-pic-of-sexual-assault-suspect/



> *CBC “policy” change: Publishes name & pic of sexual assault suspect*
> August 1, 2011 — BC Blue
> 
> I’m really looking forward to Jennifer McGuire’s (General Manager and Editor in Chief of CBC News) response to my Ombudsman filed complaint about their “policy” when it comes to suspected war criminals:
> ...


----------



## GAP (16 Aug 2011)

CBC hires ex-Bloc leader Duceppe
By Agnès Gaudet, QMI Agency 
Article Link

MONTREAL - Former Bloc Quebecois head Gilles Duceppe said he doesn't think there is anything controversial about an ex-sovereigntist leader working at the state broadcaster.

Duceppe starts work as a columnist for the French CBC next week.

“Pierre Bourgault worked for years at Radio-Canada,” he said of the late sovereigntist politician who worked in the Party Quebecois in its infancy.

A former PQ leader, Rene Levesque, as well as its current president, Raymond Archambault, were also on the French CBC, Duceppe added.

“(The CBC) also belongs to the Quebec society,” he said. “Quebec pays taxes.”

His weekly morning segment, called “La Performance de la Semaine” (The Week's Performance), debuts next Thursday on the show Premiere Chaine.

He said viewers shouldn’t expect him to argue about who is the best singer or politician. Duceppe said this topics will “make you think.”

Topics such as the current financial crisis in the United States and Europe, the development of Canada's Arctic or the health and education systems, he said. 
More on link


----------



## ModlrMike (16 Aug 2011)

Gratifying to know that they're achieving balance. 

/sarcasm


----------



## The Bread Guy (18 Aug 2011)

Duceppe's CBC radio career firing alright, career STOPS ....


> Further to a misunderstanding about the nature of his role, Gilles Duceppe has declined to be a weekly commentator on the radio show Médium large.
> 
> The team had offered Mr. Duceppe free rein to discuss topics related to culture, science and sports, with the potential to cover broader social issues. Although Mr. Duceppe did not want to approach topics from a partisan perspective, he did want to comment on current events and public policies.
> 
> "Radio-Canada's program policy clearly states that at least two years must pass before we can hire someone who has left active politics to discuss public issues as a host, reporter or commentator," said Première Chaîne director Anne Sérode. "However, the same policy does authorize the hiring of political figures whose past associations have no relation to the role he is entrusted. We understand Mr. Duceppe's decision and regret that he wasn't informed of our policy restrictions from the outset." ....


Source:  CBC news release, 18 Aug 11


----------



## Danjanou (18 Aug 2011)

So how much of a taxpayer funded pension will he now get for one days employment with Pravda oops I mean the MotherCorp?

 :whiteflag:


----------



## The Bread Guy (31 Aug 2011)

"Your honour, I had a plan in place to stay within the speed limit, but the plan failed - it was just a mistake, so I should be found not guilty".


> The CBC isn’t getting taken to the woodshed for airing vote results to western Canada on election night.
> 
> In a letter to a complainant in British Columbia, Elections Canada said since the state broadcaster didn’t intend for their signal to hit screens in the west, no penalties will be dealt.
> 
> ...


QMI/Sun Media, 30 Aug 11


----------



## a_majoor (3 Oct 2011)

Want to apply some more pressure?

http://www.cbcoptout.ca/


----------



## a_majoor (8 Oct 2011)

English language CBC is one thing, but this.....

http://www.ottawasun.com/2011/10/06/cbc-out-of-control-in-quebec



> *CBC out of control in Quebec*
> 
> By Eric Duhaime ,QMI Agency
> 
> ...



And how is the CBC reacting?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-q2m5OcCQQ&feature=player_embedded


----------



## lethalLemon (8 Oct 2011)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> English language CBC is one thing, but this.....
> 
> http://www.ottawasun.com/2011/10/06/cbc-out-of-control-in-quebec
> 
> ...



WOW


----------



## PJGary (8 Oct 2011)

lethalLemon said:
			
		

> WOW



I second that  :brickwall:


----------



## Nemo888 (8 Oct 2011)

Luckily the Sun is unbiased and nothing like Fox News  :facepalm:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_journalism

There are many people who like CBC just the way it is and wish it were more left of centre. They are not served by traditional corporate media. They pay taxes and want an alternative voice to the MSM. Their political views are such that without public funding their ideas would not get airtime on corporate stations. Is a world view that does not agree with yours so terrifying that it must be destroyed? We need disagreement and differing viewpoints in our public forums. Why do you care so much what is on the news that you don't  watch? Stop regurgitating what right wing think tanks are programming you to say. Give it a rest and go read a book.


----------



## Container (8 Oct 2011)

So a viewpoint that is only supported by people that cant be bothered to support it financially has to be paid for by everyone?

So the government should pay for two of these "news" channels and then expand as necessary to make sure that everyones view are covered off and no one is "destroyed"? Its a strange argument youre presenting. 

CBC can exist in whatever form it likes- on its own merit as a business. Not on public money. It isnt a protected heritage site or a piece of art it has to do its business well like everyone else or fold.


----------



## Edward Campbell (8 Oct 2011)

The Broadcasting Act says, _inter alia_:

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/B-9.01/page-2.html#h-4


> *3.* (1) It is hereby declared as the broadcasting policy for Canada that
> 
> (a) the Canadian broadcasting system shall be effectively owned and controlled by Canadians;
> 
> ...




Now, while in subsequent sections the Act does mention both the CBC and CBC television, as far as I am concerned all of those requirements are satisfied by CBC Radio - and not by any other service, public or private. CBC TV - broadcast or cable, in my opinion, need not exist to meet the essential requirements of the Broadcasting Act.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (8 Oct 2011)

There are two key words, used a number of times, in the document Edward posted.

They are: 

'shall' - indicating that *something must happen * or somebody *is obliged to do something* 

meaning "the Canadian broadcasting system *shall * be effectively owned and controlled by Canadians" allows for no one else to own or control the CBC.

and

'should' - used to express the conditionality of an occurrence and *suggest it is not a given*, or to indicate the consequence of something *that might happen*

meaning "(i) the programming provided by the Canadian broadcasting system *should*

(i) be varied and comprehensive, providing a balance of information, enlightenment and entertainment for men, women and children of all ages, interests and tastes,
(ii) be drawn from local, regional, national and international sources,
(iii) include educational and community programs,
(iv) provide a reasonable opportunity for the public to be exposed to the expression of differing views on matters of public concern, and
(v) include a significant contribution from the Canadian independent production sector;

The above document is so full of wiggle room on the key points, as to be a joke. What most Canadians consider the _*mandate*_ of the CBC, is in effect, simply a collection of *'suggestions'* that the CBC neither takes seriously, or is bound by rule of law to follow.


----------



## Haletown (8 Oct 2011)

The CBC is proudly socialistic-left of center and can't figure out what is wrong with having taxpayers fund a public megaphone for such ideas.  They are proud to be biased because self-labeling as "Progressive" allows them to convince themselves they are better than others.

Our CBC . .  The Canadian Broadcorping Castration.

That sound you hear is $1.1 Billion dollars flushing down the toilet . . . or is it the sound of so many lips locked on the public teat and sucking madly away.

The two sounds are so similar.


----------



## Edward Campbell (8 Oct 2011)

The bits I quoted comes before the parts that apply, specifically, to the CBC. Those quoted provisions apply to the all broadcasters: CBC, SUN TV and even independent radio stations like CFRC in Kingston.


----------



## a_majoor (8 Oct 2011)

Nemo, in a 500 channel universe anyone who wants a "Progressive" station can pay for it via specialty channel. There are @ 7% of the Canadian viewing public who actually watch the CBC; do you think they are willing to pony up $1.1 billion themselves to watch a CBC specialty channel? (I'm going to assume from the tone and content of your reply you are one of them). You can also find newsfeeds and blogs that are agreeable on the internet; there are millions to choose from.

No, they are unwilling to pay for it themselves, but more than willing to demand *we* pay for it. Time to pony up for what you want, I'm perfectly willing to pay for channels I want to watch and not ask you to pay for them, do us the same courtesy.

(Incidentally, the 7% might be overly generous):

http://www.theteamakers.com/2010/04/...#comment-12069



> Actually, most Canadians don't watch the CBC.
> 
> It's pretty easy to estimate CBC's market share. Just go to the Bureau of Broadcast Measurement (BBM) site (bbm.ca), and you'll find down at the bottom of the links on the left hand side the "Top 30 TV programs for the week".
> 
> ...


----------



## vonGarvin (8 Oct 2011)

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> There are many people who   I don't  like CBC just  the way it is and wish it were more left of centre balanced. They are not served by traditional corporate media all Canadians. They  I pay taxes and want an alternative voice to the MSM. Their political views are such that without public funding their ideas would not get airtime on corporate stations . Is a world I don't want to pay for a view that does not agree with mine  yours so terrifying that it must be destroyed? We need disagreement and differing viewpoints in our public forums. Why do you care so much what is on the news that you don't  watch insist that I continue to pay for something that could not otherwise survive due to its marginal support? Stop regurgitating what right  left  wing think tanks are programming you to say. Give it a rest and go read a book.



So, I modified your message to make it my own.  Your last statement, asserting that I am regurtiating what I am programmed to think implies that my intelligence is such that I don't have independent thought.    It's akin to saying "You don't agree with me, so instead of listening to you, I'm going to label you as stupid."  This is more commonly known as an ad hominem argument, and is a logical fallacy.  It is fallacious because it ignores the points put forth and instead diverts the discussion to the point of character assassination.

So, I too am a taxpayer, and I have widely divergent views on many things from the current social breeze.  Shall I call the CBC and have them spew forth my opinion?  I doubt it.  

The point is this: taxpayers, all taxpayers, are funding the CBC.  For the CBC to ignore the majority of those taxpayers and simply focus its "message" on a select group to the exclusion of all others is a travesty.  If Sun Media wishes to only focus on a certain group, it will sink or swim according to the support it gets from the private sector.  It appears to be doing just fine, thank you very much.


----------



## PuckChaser (8 Oct 2011)

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> Luckily the Sun is unbiased and nothing like Fox News  :facepalm:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_journalism
> 
> There are many people who like CBC just the way it is and wish it were more left of centre. They are not served by traditional corporate media. They pay taxes and want an alternative voice to the MSM. Their political views are such that without public funding their ideas would not get airtime on corporate stations. Is a world view that does not agree with yours so terrifying that it must be destroyed? We need disagreement and differing viewpoints in our public forums. Why do you care so much what is on the news that you don't  watch? Stop regurgitating what right wing think tanks are programming you to say. Give it a rest and go read a book.



How about you take your own $1.1 Billion to fund the CBC? Just as I do not want tax dollars funding right of centre news like Sun, I don't want my tax money going to left of centre news like the CBC. Especially if that corporation refuses to open its books to the taxpayers that fund it. On what world is that normal?


----------



## Edward Campbell (8 Oct 2011)

Let's assume, for a moment, that those early provisions (a. to around j.) in *3* of the Broadcasting Act are good public policy. That being stipulated:

1. They must apply, equally and evenly, to every single broadcaster *who uses the radio spectrum*,* and they ought to be applied evenly and fairly to all;

2. In so far as a _public_ broadcaster is needed to meet all of therm on a reasonably consistent basis, and I believe a case can be made that is true, then CBC Radio does the job; and

3. Thus CBC TV (English and French services) is redundant and should get no public funding. Let is wither and die on the vine.

__________
* I would argue that carriage by physical cable (or wire or fibre), but not by satellite, need no such regulation because it is an entirely private matter between cable/fibre provider and the customer; and the government, and its minions like the CRTC, have neither the need nor the legal justification to be involved.


----------



## aesop081 (8 Oct 2011)

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> want an alternative voice to the MSM.



The CBC is not an alternative to MSM........it *IS* MSM.




> We need disagreement and differing viewpoints in our public forums.



Too bad we only get one-seded rubbish from the CBC then.


----------



## Nemo888 (8 Oct 2011)

TINA (There Is No Alternative) is a horrible social disease that has gotten steadily worse for the last 30 years. I would love to try some new ideas. So much of our society is based on social experiments from the last 100 years. Most especially the think tanks and social engineering developed after WWII. Think tanks were bought out and subverted by moneyed political ideologues. They stopped having new ideas and all had an axe to grind. They influenced public opinion and changed the way people think. Journalists and politicians are only puppets of public opinion. A millionaire called Fischer started over 150 think tanks, all proselytizing his strange beliefs about economics and social engineering. I don't really think the CBC is the problem. 

Weather is too nice to stay in.


----------



## ModlrMike (8 Oct 2011)

Regardless of any sense of bias, the more important issue is the CBC's refusal to disclose where the taxpayers' money is going. There is no justifiable reason to with hold this information. One can make all the excuses about "artistic control" one wants, but at the end of the day, it's not the CBC's money, it's ours. If other organs of government are required to be accountable for their spending, then so is the CBC. For their president to claim that only a judge can force them to disclose the information is ludicrous. It defies sense to think that a government funded agency can take the government to court to prevent financial disclosure.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (8 Oct 2011)

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> Luckily the Sun is unbiased and nothing like Fox News  :facepalm:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_journalism
> 
> There are many people who like CBC just the way it is and wish it were more left of centre. They are not served by traditional corporate media. They pay taxes and want an alternative voice to the MSM. Their political views are such that without public funding their ideas would not get airtime on corporate stations. Is a world view that does not agree with yours so terrifying that it must be destroyed? We need disagreement and differing viewpoints in our public forums. Why do you care so much what is on the news that you don't  watch? Stop regurgitating what right wing think tanks are programming you to say. Give it a rest and go read a book.



So if someone bashes, your pet, the CBC, they are a bunch of red neck, right wing troglodytes. However, just normal everyworkman types like you can slam the Sun network with impunity because it's just the natural order of things.

OK, I get where your slanted liberal leaning takes you. You can only have a valid opinion if it's in lockstep with your's 

Thinking like that finally woke people up and gave PM Harper his majority.

There is always, at least, two sides to a story. Just because you have conviction, doesn't make your's right.

Perhaps your the one that should go do some reading. You still seem to think Trudeau is the PM.


----------



## Nemo888 (8 Oct 2011)

They do need to open their books. You can't take the public nickle and not disclose. As far as bias though the real manipulators of public opinion should be the ones we are looking at. Journalists and politicians do not shape public opinion. They do what they are told.  Even the army does it. We frame everything we feed the press. Obviously we are not the only ones, not even in the top ten.


----------



## GAP (8 Oct 2011)

we need a backpedalling icon...... :


----------



## Fishbone Jones (9 Oct 2011)

GAP said:
			
		

> we need a backpedalling icon...... :



It under [more] in the smilie menu.

 :backpedalling:


----------



## lethalLemon (9 Oct 2011)

Yes, the CBC leftist bias angers me and frustrates me as - like many have said - if $1.1 billion in *tax payer's money* is going into the CBC, but they're pumping out crap by the bucket loads, claim to be "proudly using every penny in order to appeal to all Canadian's coast to coast to coast", yet when asked for the budgetary documents and fund allocation documents they suddenly say: "NO! IT'S NOT ALLOWED! ONLY A JUDGE CAN ORDER THOSE RELEASED!"

I do believe however, (just as a disclaimer: I could be wrong), that because they are publicly funded it should be law that they *MUST* release those financial/budgetary and spending documents to the public when requested. For Mr. President to go and rebuttal with "the public is not allowed to see them without ruling from Justice of the Peace" is an OUTRAGE!

I pay for the CBC to keep running (although it is a minuscule fraction), I should be allowed to know where they are spending that money. If they keep blowing it on Limos, dinner parties, and alcohol... then their budget should be significantly slashed and put to better use elsewhere in this country and be forced to actually use their significantly smaller allotment of money to IMPROVE themselves - as CBC - as a whole. Maybe if they actually do it, they can have a small portion of the previous $1.1B back, but not until there is drastic change.

Am I being unreasonable?


----------



## FlyingDutchman (9 Oct 2011)

I want to see another news industry do a report on the fact cbc does not want people to see those documents.


----------



## Nemo888 (9 Oct 2011)

I must admit I still believe in democratic liberalism*, in my romantic mind the CBC should represent the voice of liberalism and social justice free of corporate influence. The CBC is supposed to be the fourth estate in a functioning democracy. But I don’t think they are. The best word to define the CBC now is insignificant. They don’t really give enough value for the 30$ per person we pay. But even though I consider them a Canadian Institution I cannot defend them. They are inane and irrelevant. Make them get funding like NPR in the states with matching funds from the government. This makes me sad. Not really about the death of the CBC, but the death of liberalism. Liberalism's greatest supporters were journalists, religious movements with social agendas, universities, artists, politicians and unions. They forgot why they were fighting, got greedy and took their power and privilege for granted. Now they are irrelevant and worthy of ridicule. Living wages, health care, universal education, women’s rights, and generally being a social safety valve that enabled incremental social change without revolution. They were a pillar of our society’s greatness, now they are part of the problem. 

*”Liberalism’s four principle features, or perspectives, which give it a recognizable
identity: it is individualist, in that it asserts the moral primacy of the
person against any collectivity; egalitarian, in that it confers on all
human beings the same basic moral status; universalist, affirming the
moral unity of the species; and meliorist, in that it asserts the open ended
improvability, by use of critical reason, of human life” John Gray


----------



## Edward Campbell (9 Oct 2011)

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> I must admit I still believe in democratic liberalism*, in my romantic mind the CBC should represent the voice of liberalism and social justice free of corporate influence. The CBC is supposed to be the fifth estate in a functioning democracy. But I don’t think they are. The best word to define the CBC now is insignificant. They don’t really give enough value for the 30$ per person we pay. But even though I consider them a Canadian Institution I cannot defend them. They are inane and irrelevant. Make them get funding like NPR in the states with matching funds from the government. This makes me sad. Not really about the death of the CBC, but the death of liberalism. Liberalism's greatest supporters were journalists, religious movements with social agendas, universities, artists, politicians and unions. They forgot why they were fighting, got greedy and took their power and privilege for granted. Now they are irrelevant and worthy of ridicule. Living wages, health care, universal education, women’s rights, and generally being a social safety valve that enabled incremental social change without revolution. They were a pillar of our society’s greatness, now they are part of the problem.
> 
> *”Liberalism’s four principle features, or perspectives, which give it a recognizable
> identity: it is individualist, in that it asserts the moral primacy of the
> ...




Gray is fine, but the _liberalism_ espoused by the CBC, the NDP and a very large slice of the Liberal Party of Canada is _collectivist_, _elitist_ in supporting e.g. the "arts" over commerce and business, _narrowly nationalist_ in its anti-American and anti-capitalist leanings, and, essentially, appears to believe that human _progress_ and _change_ are always for the worse.

Thus, the CBC, like the NDP and the LPC is is resoundingly _conservative_, and not conservative in the Edmund Burks sense but rather conservative in the sense John Stuart Mill (a _*real liberal*_) meant when he said: _"Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives."_  The CBC, in its narrow, elitist, collectivist world view is _*stupidly* conservative_ in wishing to stop change, even, maybe especially, change for the better because the status quo is comfortable and change upsets apple carts.


----------



## Good2Golf (9 Oct 2011)

Mr. Campbell, yes, it is unfortunate that many (most?) believe that any party with the word 'liberal' in or associated with its name, is a supporter of _Classic_ liberalism, which as you noted, is perhaps best (or certainly well) described by Mills, i.e. minimal interference of personal rights, and when done, primarily for protection of society at large.  Hmmm....what does that sound like...small government, protective measures for the whole?  Why, could it be that the CPC actually espouses greater support for liberalism than does the LPC which would by past record, wish to take more of your money and distribute it not only to those truly in need (in pure socialism) but to those who through leveraging the perception that they are the keepers of the very freedom many hold dear, distribute such wealth uncontested to agencies whose agendas match those in power?  Hiding (actually, carefully camouflaged is more accurate) behind the idea of responsible and generous support equally to all elements of society (_Social_ liberalism) might be seen a perversion of Marxism -- Karl Marx may have truly believed that capitalism was what gave the bourgeoisie the power over the proletariat, but in Canada, the bourgeoisie has, particularly under Liberal governance, been sated not by the inherent characteristics of a market/consumer-driven Capitalist system, but a political elite using the cape of social responsibility and support (the stated basis for Social liberalism) to mask the distribution of both the people's (partial) wealth (i.e. taxes) and their democratic capital to those agents or groups who will "for the good of the people" spend their money in a clearly disproportionate manner.  Some (many?) may make the case that Canadian "L"iberals stopped being _social_ liberalists somewhere between Pearson and Trudeau and morphed into a socio-capitalist bourgeoisie group wanting to appear socially liberal on the outside, yet enjoying the ability to divert large quantities of the proletariat taxpayers' money to organizations (such as the CBC) or companies (say, Bombarier, that received $0.1 Billion for a couple of unsold Challenger jets, on PM Chretien's order) that toe the line with those who dole out distribute in a fair and equitable and fully-representative manner the hard-earned cash of the taxpayers.

I'd more comfortable if the CBC actually had sub-divisions that were each responsible for a particular bias (socialist, capitalist,  fundamentalist, etc...) that were then presented en masse.  Then there would at least be some semblance of real egalitarian representation, not 1.1B (okay, take .2B well spent for Radio 1) going to a particular slant supporting substantively a single group's 'socialist and beyond' agenda.

 :2c:

Regards 
G2G


----------



## Edward Campbell (13 Oct 2011)

Not really news, I suppose, but the Liberals cry "hands Off the CBC," according to this article reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/liberals-defend-vital-cbc-funding/article2200319/


> Liberals defend ‘vital’ CBC funding
> 
> JENNIFER DITCHBURN
> Ottawa— Globe and Mail Update
> ...




I doubt this will concern the Tories; something like 8% of Canadians watch/listen to the CBC on a regular basis (i.e. that watch something other than Hockey Night in Canada); some of them already vote Conservative, those who don't are unlikely to change their minds. We will  now see who gets more favourable treatment from the CBC: the Liberals or the _Dippers_.


----------



## Rifleman62 (13 Oct 2011)

Jennifer is the typical Cdn media b person. No disclosure for her. 

Just Google it

The Globe and Mail is full of ....


----------



## a_majoor (13 Oct 2011)

The government is searching for $4 billion/year in savings; they can double that instantly by eliminating ALL crown corporations (which have a combined budget of $8 billion/year according the the last figures I have, dating from 2008).

The arguments _for_ the CBC in a 500 channel and infinite internet univers are not very compelling against to the global bond market's view of the overall financial picture of the nation.....


----------



## Neill McKay (13 Oct 2011)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> something like 8% of Canadians watch/listen to the CBC on a regular basis (i.e. that watch something other than Hockey Night in Canada)



I find that number hard to believe.  I would have thought that that Radio alone would exceed that.



			
				Thucydides said:
			
		

> The government is searching for $4 billion/year in savings; they can double that instantly by eliminating ALL crown corporations (which have a combined budget of $8 billion/year according the the last figures I have, dating from 2008).



Do you imagine that there are no crown corporations doing useful work?


----------



## Good2Golf (13 Oct 2011)

N. McKay said:
			
		

> I find that number hard to believe.  I would have thought that that Radio alone would exceed that...



2,800,000 daily viewers/listeners is hard to believe?


----------



## Edward Campbell (14 Oct 2011)

N. McKay said:
			
		

> I find that number hard to believe.  I would have thought that that Radio alone would exceed that.
> ...



Try this source from 2009:

"CBC television’s audience share is up 30 per cent since hitting a low point in 2002, Kirstine Layfield said in a note to staff to staff on Tuesday.

CBC TV’s current regular season prime time audience share now stands at 8.9 per cent – up from 6.7 per cent in the 2002/2003 season."

That's it's prime time share - probably lower in off-peak hours.


----------



## Edward Campbell (14 Oct 2011)

N. McKay said:
			
		

> I find that number hard to believe.  I would have thought that that Radio alone would exceed that.
> ...




Or this: http://www2.canada.com/topics/news/story.html?id=5528272

-- 9.3 % - CBC prime-time audience share, English Canada
-- 20 % - Radio-Canada prime-time audience share, French Canada

9.3% of 75% of Canadians equals about 7% of all Canadians who watch the CBC English service
20% of 20% of all Canadians = about 4% of all Canadians who watch the French service


----------



## Neill McKay (14 Oct 2011)

Both of those refer only to TV, and only to prime time.  What you said originally was that only "something like 8% of Canadians watch/listen to the CBC on a regular basis".  That's not at all the same thing, is it?


----------



## Good2Golf (14 Oct 2011)

...if you look hard enough, you may find some pepper in there...


----------



## Edward Campbell (14 Oct 2011)

N. McKay said:
			
		

> Both of those refer only to TV, and only to prime time.  What you said originally was that only "something like 8% of Canadians watch/listen to the CBC on a regular basis".  That's not at all the same thing, is it?



<yawn>

The equivalent CRC radio numbers are <15% for CBC Radio English services and <20% for CBC Radio in French that's 15% of 75% (12% of all Canadians) and 20% of 20% (4% of all Canadians) and since I don't argue that CBC Radio should be sold off I hardly think the point is important, but ...

You could look this sh!t up for yourself you know; you're not bloody helpless, are you?

__________
(Sorry, Mods, I suppose I should apologize for this _personal attack_, but WTF, over?)


----------



## jollyjacktar (14 Oct 2011)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> <yawn>
> 
> The equivalent CRC radio numbers are <15% for CBC Radio English services and <20% for CBC Radio in French that's 15% of 75% (12% of all Canadians) and 20% of 20% (4% of all Canadians) and since I don't argue that CBC Radio should be sold off I hardly think the point is important, but ...
> 
> ...



Neil, let me help you with your data collection.  Ahem.... my name is jollyjacktar and I listen to CBC (English) radio as my primary source of listening activty whilst driving to and from work.  There, that should help.  Only 14.99999999% of the others out there need to come forward and confess.


----------



## Neill McKay (14 Oct 2011)

.


----------



## Sythen (14 Oct 2011)

> Of course I could, but I'm not going to make your argument for you.  If you want to opine about the value of the CBC based on its audience share, then it's up to you to back up your numbers.



lol? Wow just wow. I remember Mark Steyn saying once that the usual argument of the Left is to call facts opinions. Never thought I'd see such a direct case of it haha.. 

The real point here is if you want to argue against something, maybe you should first educate yourself on the subject, right? Never let the facts get in the way of a good story lol

EDIT: Guess you edited your post. Will leave your quote up though cause it makes me smile.


----------



## Rifleman62 (14 Oct 2011)

ERC: 





> <yawn>


 and all after. 

Hilarious!

Also add to your post: Source CBC.  As posted: http://www2.canada.com/topics/news/story.html?id=5528272

The quoted info brought to you by the corporation accused by many to skew the news, and who refused to inform taxpayers how the corporation spends their money.


----------



## GAP (14 Oct 2011)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Neil, let me help you with your data collection.  Ahem.... my name is jollyjacktar and I listen to CBC (English) radio as my primary source of listening activty whilst driving to and from work.  There, that should help.  Only 14.99999999% of the others out there need to come forward and confess.



Ah....do we have to....it's my secret life....I listen to As It Happens.....sigh.......(disgust, shame, where's the 12 steps!! )


----------



## a_majoor (15 Oct 2011)

N. McKay said:
			
		

> Do you imagine that there are no crown corporations doing useful work?



I imagine that if there was an actual market for said goods and services, the private sector would provide such goods and services. 

For example, if there was a market for television entertainment, there might be companies called CTV, SUN, and so on to provide the service...If the market was drawn more narrowly to specialty programming, there might be companies called "Discovery Channel", or "HGTV", or "Space" or....

Even if you grant that Crown Corporations are doing "useful" work, their private sector counterparts are probably doing similar work for far less than $8 billion dollars, and are paying taxes to support their own competition.


----------



## Edward Campbell (17 Oct 2011)

It's not just the CBC. Consider this bit, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/ndp-sought-air-canada-upgrades-for-laytons-funeral/article2203285/


> *MORNING BUZZ*
> NDP sought Air Canada upgrades for Layton’s funeral
> 
> JANE TABER
> ...




The headline and the first two paragraphs are about the _Dippers_ asking for (and receiving) free upgrades but most of the story is a retelling of an, apparently untrue, story about Lisa Eaitt not getting a free upgrade.

As to the question at the end? Parliament will dismiss the NDP attacks as lies, but the media will repeat them, the lies, for as long as they can manage.


----------



## Redeye (17 Oct 2011)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> I imagine that if there was an actual market for said goods and services, the private sector would provide such goods and services.
> 
> For example, if there was a market for television entertainment, there might be companies called CTV, SUN, and so on to provide the service...If the market was drawn more narrowly to specialty programming, there might be companies called "Discovery Channel", or "HGTV", or "Space" or....
> 
> Even if you grant that Crown Corporations are doing "useful" work, their private sector counterparts are probably doing similar work for far less than $8 billion dollars, and are paying taxes to support their own competition.



You've precisely encapsulated exactly why Crown Corporations exist - because the private sector would fail to provide a national broadcasting service what would even cover the remote reaches of this country, because it wouldn't be profitable. Ditto why subsidies exist for certain travel services which wouldn't be profitable in certain areas yet are considered by the public to be necessary for the common good.

Thanks for playing.


----------



## Edward Campbell (17 Oct 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> You've precisely encapsulated exactly why Crown Corporations exist - because the private sector would fail to provide a national broadcasting service what would even cover the remote reaches of this country, because it wouldn't be profitable. Ditto why subsidies exist for certain travel services which wouldn't be profitable in certain areas yet are considered by the public to be necessary for the common good.
> 
> Thanks for playing.




Which is precisely why I, and many others, advocate the continued existence of CBC Radio (English, French and International services) as a _public_, commercial free, network and the immediate defunding of CBC/_Radio Canada_ television services - over the air and cable.

The legal requirement, in the Act I cited a few days ago, is fully, 100%, satisfied by CBC Radio. CBC TV need not and should not exist as a _public_, taxpayer funded, system because it is not filling any requirement.


----------



## Rifleman62 (17 Oct 2011)

Before our Bde got a PAFFO, during the period we were sending Reservists to the FRY, during the departure press conference from Minto Armoury, I observed the following:

- TV Crew (Camera, producer, reporter) from CBC Newsworld;
- TV Crew                                                    CBC National News;
- TV Crew                                                    CBC Local News;
- TV Crew                                                    CBC French (But not the National French);
- Reporter                                                    CBC Radio local; and
- Reporter                                                    CBC Radio French local.

Additionally, CTV Local crew of two (days before Global), CJOB Radio, Wpg Free Press, Wpg Sun,and a local community paper. 

So we had approximately fourteen CBC employees and six disgruntled other media types. CBC had/has National News and Newsworld crews in Wpg and other cities. 

Almost as bad as NDHQ. Send Andy Leslie in.


----------



## a_majoor (17 Oct 2011)

And Edward cuts to the heart of the matter; there is no need for the CBC in the current form.

Modern technology demolishes the second argument; the Internet is accessable virtually anywhere, people in remote regions may have to get satellite downloads but they can still access the universe of information. The fact of the matter is most Canadians don't choose to watch/listen to CBC anymore, but are still required to pay handsomely for it. 

If you or I were to offer a service with so little value to the viewing/listening audience, we could never demand a premium for it, so why should the management of the CBC get a pass?


----------



## Good2Golf (18 Oct 2011)

I would add CBC North to the "keep CBC Radio/SRC" list.  

What makes little sense is the funding of CBC business units with taxpayers money based on perceived/manufactured requirement to provide a politically/socially-oriented component to compete in a commercial manner against private-sector outlets.  This is particularly true when the leadership of this organization publicly demonstrates  flagrant disregard for the very tools (Access to Information Act) meant to ensure responsible and accountable use of public monies.

Regards
G2G


----------



## Rifleman62 (18 Oct 2011)

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2011/10/17/pol-vp-milewski-texas-crime.html
*
Posted: Oct 17, 2011

Texas conservatives reject Harper's crime plan*

'Been there; done that; didn't work,' say Texas crime-fighters
By Terry Milewski, CBC News

You don't even have to read it to get the CBC's msg. And look who wrote it.


----------



## PJGary (18 Oct 2011)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2011/10/17/pol-vp-milewski-texas-crime.html
> *
> Posted: Oct 17, 2011
> 
> ...



Yes! I'm not the only one who saw this ridiculous story, there was a full feature on The National last night. No monetary comparisons, no policy comparisons, sheesh. And I love how there was no attempt to show if the Texas judge had ANY clue what the current policy was in Canada, just "Do you think this policy is bad?" "Yes". And I chuckle everytime Milewski says the word "Harper" and gets this snide disapproving tone in the middle of his sentence "But we all know the book was written by... :not-again: Haaaarper  ...Lee"

Blech


----------



## Retired AF Guy (18 Oct 2011)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2011/10/17/pol-vp-milewski-texas-crime.html
> *
> Posted: Oct 17, 2011
> 
> ...



Here's a good piece (produced under S29 of the Copyright Act) from Brian Lee Crowley of the Macdonald-Laurier Institute who dispels some of the myths about the Canadian incarceration rate and the "Americanization" of our prisons:



> Claims of wholesale Americanization of our criminal justice system highly exaggerated
> 
> Crime will be high on Parliament’s agenda this fall, given the priority that the Conservatives attached to the issue in the last election. Canada must indeed be vigilant to avoid the excesses of the American justice system.
> 
> ...



 Article Link  

* This article also appeared in the Kingston Whig Standard/Toronto Sun.


----------



## Good2Golf (19 Oct 2011)

R AF G, it certainly is nice to see solid research put into a cogent article.  Quite a different view when sensationalism is cast aside for accuracy and depth of analysis.

Regards
G2G


----------



## observor 69 (19 Oct 2011)

I agree with the closing para.

"Canada must indeed be vigilant to avoid the excesses of the American justice system. The government has an obligation to justify its corrections policies in terms of the real increased protection they can offer to Canadians while also making all reasonable efforts to rehabilitate offenders. But claims of the wholesale Americanization of the Canadian criminal justice system are highly exaggerated."
Article Link

But IMHO I didn't find the basic premise of the CBC story sensational.
I did find the OECD info very interesting.


----------



## Monsoon (19 Oct 2011)

Baden  Guy said:
			
		

> But IMHO I didn't find the basic premise of the CBC story sensational.
> I did find the OECD info very interesting.


The premise of the story _is_ sensational because the unspoken assumption (the one that Terry wanted to make sure everyone was left with) is that the proposed crime bill is exactly like the system in Texas. To achieve this, he interviewed a bunch of Texas lawmakers and having told them exactly that, went on to quote them critiquing "our" proposed system even though they're just critiquing their own system. In terms of the quantity of minimum sentences and their harshness, the proposed bill is a still a million miles away from Texas.

This is the sort of editorializing-in-the-news story that flies in the face of all that nonsense about "journalistic ethics" (although I admit it's a fabulously effective bit of politicking by the press gallery opposition).


----------



## observor 69 (19 Oct 2011)

You could very well be right. But in my case, in the context of having lived in Houston,Tx for five years, my takeaway from the story was in a state renowned for hangin', chain gangs and very formidable prisons these strong law and order politicans changed their approach for strictly pragmatic reasons. As those interviewed said,the result was lower cost and a decrease in repeat offenders

Hence the impression that stuck with me is Harper wants to spend more money on increasing the number of criminals in jail while here is a program that bears exploration for it's potential benefits.


----------



## Rifleman62 (19 Oct 2011)

Baden Guy: 





> Hence the impression that stuck with me is Harper wants to spend more money on increasing the number of *criminals *in jail ..........



You got it Baden Guy! Unfortunately the ethical requirement to report factually is not CBC's mantra. CBC has continually stated thousands of Canadians will be in jail as a result of the evil Harper government. 

While the CBC is correct, as most of the *convicted criminals*  are probably Canadians, it is a bit of a stretch.


----------



## a_majoor (19 Oct 2011)

Here is an interesting take on political theater and the hows and whys it gets TV coverage. (Since I don't watch CBC news anymore [bad for the blood pressure], the specific example is from CTV news). An "Occupy" protest in Canada got approving coverage about how "spontanious" and "leaderless" the demonstrations were, despite the reporter standing in front of a huge CUPE banner. Obviously it never occured to the reporteer or any member of the crew, the line producer, the news director or the news reader to follow up the meaning of the bammer and how CUPE was involved in an allegedly "leaderless" or "spontanious" demonstration.

The other take away of this article is once you realize the how and why of the futility of street protests, ytou also know why the TEA Party movement is not demonstrating or counterdemonstrating; they are actually doing stuff. This isn't political theater for TV, hence they are not appearing on the screen (and givent he evident curiosity of news "reporters" these days, a movement like that in Canada would pass under the radar with no actual follow up):

http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2011/10/18/the-vain-and-empty-rituals-of-protest-on-the-streets/



> *The Vain And Empty Rituals Of Protest On The Streets*
> Walter Russell Mead
> 
> The news that 175 people were arrested over the weekend in a Chicago OWS protest started me thinking about the ritualized nature of left demonstrations.  The drums, the chants, the defiance, the arrests — and, sometimes, the glass smashing and the fire setting:  it all unfolds according to a predictable pattern that in its modern form is essentially unchanged since the Vietnam War.
> ...


----------



## OldSolduer (19 Oct 2011)

Both sides - the government and the media - are playing on our fears. Fear is powerful and overwhelms logic and reason.


----------



## a_majoor (23 Oct 2011)

Putting "ethics" in any sentance with the words CBC should end now:

http://www.torontosun.com/2011/10/21/cbc-running-scared-state-broadcasters-false-attack-ads-demonstrate-how-financial-probe-is-desperately-needed



> *CBC running scared: State broadcaster's false attack ads demonstrate how financial probe is desperately needed*
> FIRST POSTED: SATURDAY, OCTOBER 22, 2011 08:00 PM EDT
> 
> The CBC — the mega-corporation that is demanding yet another $1.1-billion bailout from taxpayers this year, just like it demanded a $1.1-billion bailout from us last year — is panicking.
> ...


----------



## Rifleman62 (3 Nov 2011)

*Reform the CBC*

http://www.nationalpost.com/todays-paper/Reform/5636064/story.html

Jason Clemens, Financial Post · Nov. 1, 2011

The nation's public broadcaster, the CBC, has attracted a lot of attention over the last few weeks. All the discussion is occurring within an Ottawa environment where at least $4-billion (probably more now, given the slowing economy) has to be found over the next three years for the government to balance its budget as planned. Unfortunately, the discourse about the CBC tends to be overly emotive and ideological rather than practical.

To objectively evaluate the CBC within the broader context of government services and programs that are all facing potential budget cuts (transfers to individuals and the provinces have been exempted), one should compare the broadcaster's goals against its performance.

But within what framework? In 1994, the Chrétien Liberals introduced a yearlong process of review for all government spending, which led to the historic 1995 budget. The spending review was based on six tests:

1) Serve the public interest.

2) Necessity of government involvement.

3) Appropriate role for the federal (or provincial) government.

4) Scope for public-private partnerships.

5) Scope for increased efficiency.

6) Affordability.

The CBC's stated mandate is to "inform, enlighten and entertain" viewers and listeners about our nation, its culture and identity. Although debatable, there is a cogent, reasonable argument to be made that a nation's government should undertake action to promote its values, culture and history. Such an argument would satisfy the first three tests listed above.

The satisfaction of the first three tests, however, doesn't logically lead to the need for a state broadcaster with all its fixed costs and bricks and mortar. The CBC received $1.16-billion in 2010 from the federal government, representing about two-thirds of its revenues. The practical question is whether alternatives to the status quo could achieve better results in terms of educating and enlightening Canadians about their culture, history and national identity at the same or even lower cost to taxpayers.

Tests four through six pose a serious, even existential challenge for the CBC in its current form. First, there are now a number of private companies that the CBC directly competes with, including large national organizations, such as CTV and Global, as well as many niche players. This suggests both private-sector alternatives (test #4) and room for efficiency gains (test #5) from changing the status quo at the CBC.

In addition to private-sector competitors, there is also the issue of existing alternative mechanisms to achieve the CBC's stated goal. One existing option, for instance, is the Canada Media Fund (CMF), a public-private partnership. The CMF already has processes in place to fund worthy (admittedly a subjective process) programs, including, by the way, programs broadcast by the CBC. Here is a clear alternative to the CBC model: Private companies apply to the CMF for funding to develop, produce, market and air programs. Such an approach would insulate the government from almost all the fixed costs associated with maintaining a national broadcaster.

Another serious problem for the CBC in terms of value to taxpayers is viewership (test #6). Simply put, it's hard to achieve CBC's mandate if no one is watching or listening. Examining the top 30 shows in any given week as compiled by the BBM is quite informative about this problem. Over the last year (period ending Oct. 16), the CBC had 163 programs in the top 30 (total of 1,560).

However, 57 of the 163 programs were hockey. Hockey would absolutely continue without the CBC. Sixteen of the remaining programs were Jeopardy!, 11 were Wheel of Fortune, and 14 were the Movie of the Week, which is more often than not an American movie. It's rather hard to explain how these programs advance or even resemble the stated mandate of the CBC.

That leaves 65 shows (4.2%) in the top 30 for the entire year. And the remaining shows are dominated by titles like Dragon's Den and the Rick Mercer Report. Canadians just don't seem to watch the CBC and when they do, it's not entirely clear that what they're watching is about their culture and heritage.

Another problem for the CBC is its cost. Currently, the CBC costs taxpayers about $69 per year. To put this into perspective, a cable customer in Ontario purchasing the basic package from one of the large providers gets more than 50 regular stations, plus 45 or so HD stations, plus over 75 radio stations for $36 per month. The magnitude of the value difference, particularly when one considers that most Canadians do not watch the CBC, outside of hockey, is striking.

One of the critical factors of success in the Chrétien spending review was that no area of government was exempt. Given the deficit and the scarcity of taxpayer-provided resources, CBC must be part of the current federal government's review. But the choice is not whether the federal government can or should support educational efforts about the country's history, culture and identity. Rather, the question is whether there's a better way to achieve those goals than spending more than $1.1-billion per year to maintain a national broadcaster. The evidence suggests, quite strongly, that a number of lower-cost options could achieve similar, if not better, results than the CBC.

- Jason Clemens is the director of research at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute and co-author of the award-winning book, The Canadian Century (2010).


----------



## a_majoor (16 Nov 2011)

Ezra Levant reminds us of the CBC's MO:

http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/video/hypocrisy-of-the-cbc/1277356640001


----------



## Rifleman62 (16 Nov 2011)

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/arts/television/cbc-exploring-jack-layton-biopic-has-familys-support/article2238530/

G & M 16 Nov 11
*
CBC exploring Jack Layton biopic, has family's support *

I wonder if the neighborhood clinic scene will be X rated?


----------



## PJGary (17 Nov 2011)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/arts/television/cbc-exploring-jack-layton-biopic-has-familys-support/article2238530/
> 
> G & M 16 Nov 11
> *
> ...



"CBC is proud to present, in his debut film role ladies and gentlemen, playing the part of Prime Minister Stephen Harper...Cthulhu!"


----------



## OldSolduer (17 Nov 2011)

PJGary said:
			
		

> "CBC is proud to present, in his debut film role ladies and gentlemen, playing the part of Prime Minister Stephen Harper...Cthulhu!"



I had nNo idea who Cthulhu is but do now.

I would think if CBC had someone playing the part of the PM the actor would have horns and hooves..... >


----------



## The Bread Guy (23 Nov 2011)

Fed Ct of Appeal:  cough those documents up to the Info Commish, CBC


> The Federal Court of Appeal has upheld a lower court ruling that found information commissioner Suzanne Legault has a right to privately vet CBC documents and decide whether they could be released under the Access to Information Act.
> 
> The CBC has said it doesn't have to let Legault see them as they relate to journalistic, programming or creative activities and are therefore exempt under the act.
> 
> ...


Postmedia News, 23 Nov 11


----------



## ModlrMike (23 Nov 2011)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Fed Ct of Appeal:  cough those documents up to the Info Commish, CBCPostmedia News, 23 Nov 11



So let me see if I understand:

CBC: Only a judge can order the release of the documents.

Courts: Release the documents.

CBC: We will not release the documents.

So who's going to be the first to go to jail?


----------



## PJGary (25 Nov 2011)

Taken from cbc.ca

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2011/11/24/pol-libya-ceremony.html



> Ceremony called 'showpiece' for government
> One critic called Thursday's ceremony a "garish display" at a time when the government is trying to cut costs, and that there is a fine line between celebrating the military and putting on a "political show."



So honoring veterans is a "political show" but a state funeral for Jack Layton and his "Last letter to Canadians" is not to be criticized.


----------



## vonGarvin (25 Nov 2011)

I rarely watch television.  Yesterday, I was looking for football on television, and I came across CBC doing a piece on how much it cost, per hour, per plane.  By their math, the defence budget would be trillions.


----------



## The Bread Guy (25 Nov 2011)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> So let me see if I understand:
> 
> CBC: Only a judge can order the release of the documents.
> 
> ...


Unless the committee caves, of course.....


> An uneasy truce was called Thursday in a nasty spat between the CBC and a House of Commons committee.
> 
> The access-to-information and ethics committee agreed to return sealed documents to the public broadcaster rather than press ahead with a proposal by Conservative MPs to examine the sensitive material.
> 
> ...


I wonder who in government decided this?  This doesn't sound like a decision a committee chair would be freelancing....


----------



## Good2Golf (25 Nov 2011)

Sounds like Lacroix is changing his tune.  This is the first I've heard of his overall _r'aison d'être_ on the "we won`t provide any information" issue as being related primarily to the protection of journalistic sources...


Regards 
G2G


----------



## The Bread Guy (25 Nov 2011)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Sounds like Lacroix is changing his tune.  This is the first I've heard of his overall _r'aison d'être_ on the "we won`t provide any information" issue as being related primarily to the protection of journalistic sources...


Good catch on the use of the term "sources" (although it's been used in another paraphrase situation by QMI media earlier this month).

The legislation reads as follows ....


> This Act does not apply to any information that is under the control of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation that relates to its *journalistic*, creative or programming *activities*, other than information that relates to its general administration.


.... but it sounds more gallant to say they're protecting "sources" rather than methods or practices.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (25 Nov 2011)

I'm not sure if it was ever really about seeing the content. 

I'm _*hoping*_ that it was a way of putting into the public record, the arrogance and secrecy, practiced by this taxpayer funded, Crown corporation.

I _*hope*_ that it's all part of a larger plan to build a case, and gather evidence, ending in a very public inquiry into the anti taxpayer, anti government, money wasting elitist practices carried out by said organization.

I _*really hope*_ it ends in the total dissolution and sell off of the CBC before the next election.


----------



## Good2Golf (26 Nov 2011)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Good catch on the use of the term "sources" (although it's been used in another paraphrase situation by QMI media earlier this month).



Interesting that in the QMI piece, Lacroix is quoted as relating the need for protection as related to "news", yet that distinction (as opposed to non-news programming, etc...) has never been made to my knowledge regarding refusal to provide requested information. 



> "A news organization has to be able to pursue its legitimate journalistic activities without arbitrary interference from outside parties, whether competitors, government, or others," Lacroix said.



So does the CBC feel it can block any information requests because some of its operations are related to those of a "news organization"?

So if I read this correctly, other Government of Canada organizations must provide ATI'd information, including classified (when appropriately redacted) material (DND, CSIS, CSE, RCMP, etc...) , yet the CBC believes it doesn't have to provide any requested material?   ???

Regards
G2G


----------



## observor 69 (26 Nov 2011)

Hébert: Defensiveness not helping CBC/Radio-Canada

November 25, 2011

Chantal Hébert

MONTREAL—For the past decade, my working week has begun with an early morning trek to a Radio-Canada Montreal studio to talk about national politics on C’est bien meilleur le matin, the French-language network’s popular morning show.

I’m in by seven and usually out an hour later. We cover two issues in separate segments. For getting up at 5 a.m. to read every major paper in sight and drink enough coffee to sound marginally more awake than the show’s listeners, I get $250 (before taxes).

For the past five years, I have been a panelist on Radio-Canada television’s Les Coulisses du Pouvoir. The show is broadcast live about once every three Sundays. Otherwise it is taped on Fridays — when overtime is not an issue.

We normally cover three topics inspired by the week’s developments on Parliament Hill and in the National Assembly. In exchange for routinely turning my working week into six days along with keeping an eye on two capitals, I get $300.

The CBC’s At Issue panel is in its tenth year. For most of that decade, I took part in the mid-evening discussion from a hole in the wall of Radio-Canada’s Montreal basement. The booth was so spartan that it was known as Soviet TV.

More recently, I have been flying to Toronto where the set for The National is significantly more convivial. As a bonus, I actually get to see Peter Mansbridge and my fellow panelists. The rate for a regular At Issue panelist these days is $500. It has gone up along with the panel’s audience. A decade ago, it was about half of that.

As far as I can tell, my honorariums fall squarely within the fork established by the public broadcaster for its guest contributors.

I also know first-hand that there is more money to be made performing the same work for the private networks.

Seven years ago, Quebecor invited me to move over to its expanding media empire. I did not want to leave the Star but another major consideration was that I would have had to give up the significant side benefits attendant to a CBC/Radio-Canada gig.

One of those is the chance to work with media colleagues who are at the top of their game and passionate about engaging their audience on current affairs.

If Radio-Canada stopped broadcasting tomorrow, the rest of Canada would become a black news hole in Quebec. Alone among the country’s French-language news organizations, it has journalistic antennas across Canada.

For Quebecor’s money-making TVA flagship, Canada stops on Parliament Hill and, outside of exceptional circumstances, the world does not extend beyond Washington — the only two non-Quebec locales where it maintains bureaus.

To paper over the gaps in its federal coverage, Quebecor’s TVA network uses pundits like my friend, the ubiquitous politician-turned-media-star Jean Lapierre.

And then there is a reason why the At Issue panel is introduced as Canada’s most watched political panel: it is the only one to run in evening prime time on a national general television network.

Over the past year, Quebecor has filed hundreds of access to information applications related to the inner workings of the CBC — including the honorariums of guest panelists like myself.

In many instances, it would have been quicker to just pick up the phone and ask. The Globe and Mail did just that when it published a story about the At Issue panel some months ago.

That being said, the public broadcaster might want to reconsider its bunker-style approach to such queries. It contributes mightily to the birth of over-the-top urban legends.

When Radio-Canada offered former Bloc Québécois leader Gilles Duceppe a weekly gig this fall, a predictable volley of outrage-filled columns followed.

Floating outlandish numbers, they portrayed his assignment as a raid on the public purse.

In fact, had the plan not been aborted, Duceppe would have received $300 a week — a bargain basement rate for a commentator with his public affairs knowledge and experience.

With more transparency, CBC/Radio-Canada would not so often needlessly hang itself out to dry.

Chantal Hébert is a national affairs writer. Her column appears Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/politics/article/1092746--hebert-defensiveness-not-helping-cbc-radio-canada


----------



## a_majoor (26 Nov 2011)

More questions, still no answers:

http://thetrustytory2.wordpress.com/2011/11/26/cbc-the-mighty-will-fall/



> *CBC: The Mighty Will Fall*
> 
> I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again – it looks like the beginning of the end of the public through for the CBC.
> 
> ...


----------



## GAP (20 Dec 2011)

CBC's glitzy Strombo party cost $72Gs plus 
By Brian Lilley, Parliamentary Bureau	
Article Link

OTTAWA - CBC paid more than one-and-a-half times the average income of a working Canadian for a one-night, celebrity-filled party last September.

Called the Hazelton Takeover, the event cost taxpayers more than $72,000, thousands more than CBC president Hubert Lacroix claimed when he appeared before a Commons committee.

The lavish event, held at "Canada's only 5 star hotel" in "the city's finest and most fashionable downtown district," brought CBC host George Stroumboulopoulos together with American and British celebrities during the Toronto International Film Festival.

Lacroix told MPs that the party cost $64,000, but a single invoice from Veritas Communications shows a charge of $72,372.

Other invoices, including one from the Hazelton Hotel, have had all the key information -- including charges -- removed.

According to Statistics Canada's Labour Force Survey, the average wage in Canada for working individuals is $44,252 a year.

The documents were obtained by QMI Agency through an access to information request.

Another document shows a team of four bodyguards were hired to protect Stroumboulopoulos during his party. The costs for the private security team have also been removed.

The contract for renting out Canada's most luxurious hotel for the party were released with all relevant details removed.

CBC claimed the contract was "information the disclosure of which could reasonably be expected to prejudice the competitive position of a government institution."

The documents show that CBC officials hoped to create a buzz about the launch of their new show, George Stroumboulopoulos Tonight.

In the end they reported a three-day spike in Twitter traffic.
More on link


----------



## Fishbone Jones (20 Dec 2011)

Sorry. I don't watch\ listen\ support (volutarily)\ care about the Communist Broadcasting Corporation (CBC).

Did I miss something else expensive that I paid for, to highlight some other useless, untalented left wing, espousing fawn of neopotisim?

A minion that works for an untouchable, taxpayer funded, national organization? 

An organization that is mandated to work for the majority of Canadians, that fails, so very miserably, on so many levels to fulfil that mandate?

The same Mother Corporation that has told the Canadian Parliment and by extention, the Canadian People, to go fuck themselves.

Sorry, I find it really hard to get excited anymore when no one else wants these deadbeats gone.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (20 Dec 2011)

> "Another document shows a team of four bodyguards were hired ..."



Going off-topic here but are bodyguards here in Canada allowed to carry firearms?? Nothing to do with Stroumboulopoulos; just curious.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (20 Dec 2011)

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> Going off-topic here but are bodyguards here in Canada allowed to carry firearms?? Nothing to do with Stroumboulopoulos; just curious.



Why not?

The Quebec government, the most anti gun government  in Canada, allowed 'Mom' Bouchard, president of the Hell's Angels' to carry, by permit issued by the Gov't of Quebec, a handgun for protection.

They let one of the biggest criminals, who was in charge of one of the largest criminal organisations in Canada, to carry a firearm for personal protection.

All the while, denying and demonising thousands of law abiding citizens of the province the same right to self defence.

By extention, why wouldn't the CBC be able to procure armed protection for Strombo?


----------



## Container (20 Dec 2011)

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> Going off-topic here but are bodyguards here in Canada allowed to carry firearms?? Nothing to do with Stroumboulopoulos; just curious.



Recce's point aside- which was a gigantic embarrassment.

Generally no. There have been numerous instances of bodyguards being caught armed when they shouldnt be. Both in Canada and the United States in the states where its prohibited.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (20 Dec 2011)

Container said:
			
		

> Recce's point aside- which was a gigantic embarrassment.
> 
> Generally no. There have been numerous instances of bodyguards being caught armed when they shouldnt be. Both in Canada and the United States in the states where its prohibited.



I'll add, unless you are a Judge or a high profile Lawyer, it is near impossible to get a permit to carry for protection in Canada.

IIRC, the yearly license stats show less than 30 legally allowed to carry for protection in all of Canada.

Mom Bouchard got one though


----------



## OldSolduer (20 Dec 2011)

Question - this party the CBC had - was there hospitality involved?

We're freakin nickeled and dimed yet the CBC can spend 72 grand on a party.


----------



## Good2Golf (21 Dec 2011)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> Question - this party the CBC had - was there hospitality involved?
> 
> We're freakin nickeled and dimed yet the CBC can spend 72 grand on a party.



Our Minister can only authorize $3,000 for hospitality, if I recall correctly.  

It would appear that the CBC is unlike Federal Departments in that regard, or that for it, a hospitality event is actually an operational activity for the CBC.


----------



## Edward Campbell (21 Dec 2011)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Our Minister can only authorize $3,000 for hospitality, if I recall correctly.
> 
> It would appear that the CBC is unlike Federal Departments in that regard, or that for it, a hospitality event is actually an operational activity for the CBC.




But of course, hoping _"to create a buzz about the launch of their new show, George Stroumboulopoulos Tonight"_ is an absolutely vital _operational activity_, dahling, and one cannot expect the creative talent at the centre of the known universe to be bound by pesky little rules drawn up by drab little people in the frozen little capital by the Rideau Canal.


----------



## The Bread Guy (21 Dec 2011)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Our Minister can only authorize $3,000 for hospitality, if I recall correctly.
> 
> It would appear that the CBC is unlike Federal Departments in that regard, or that for it, a hospitality event is actually an operational activity for the CBC.


And I have to get three bids for coffee and doughnuts if I want to get the federal government to pay for some for a meeting with clients.


----------



## PJGary (22 Dec 2011)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> And I have to get three bids for coffee and doughnuts if I want to get the federal government to pay for some for a meeting with clients.



And yet they still don't even trust us (or our respective chains) to not do something ridiculous with the money that they DO authorize us to spend ha ha.


----------



## Remius (22 Dec 2011)

Although I agree that DND's stooginess on things like food and drink is a bit over the top for things like coffee and doughnuts, I once worked for a certain organisation that thought it could provide 19K worth of booze over three nights without anyone approving it.  Got themselves in hot water over that one.

I think the CBC is going to get a rough ride as more expenses like that come to light.  remember they are celebrating 75 years...imagine what they have planned for that gong show.  Salaries, perks.  Interesting times over there...


----------



## Good2Golf (23 Dec 2011)

Crantor said:
			
		

> Although I agree that DND's stooginess on things like food and drink is a bit over the top for things like coffee and doughnuts, I once worked for a certain organisation that thought it could provide 19K worth of booze over three nights without anyone approving it.  Got themselves in hot water over that one.
> 
> I think the CBC is going to get a rough ride as more expenses like that come to light.  remember they are celebrating 75 years...imagine what they have planned for that gong show.  Salaries, perks.  Interesting times over there...



Crantor, it's not just DND...it's a Treasury Board directive that applies to all federal line Departments.  I have a friend who works over at Justice, and he says the Hospitality Policy is just as ridiculous over there.   I agree that there should be controls to ensure taxpayer money isn't wasted, but the current hospitality policy is so stingey, that if would embarrass my even my Scottish grandfather.  It either makes us Canadians look like incredible cheapskates when we are hosting other Nation's official, or, to keep embarrassment to a minimum, ends up in the gov't workers putting a collection of their own money together (I and my section did just that years ago hosting a RAF Station Commander) so that the government doesn't appear like such skinflints.    To then see the CBC neither confirming to those directives that the other Departments if they are supposed to as well, or worse yet, be given some kind of special dispensation to be allowed to spend huge amounts of money, yet figuratively spit in the taxpayers' faces by refusing to provide openly all information related to such expenditures...well...it's disappointing to say the least.

Regards
G2G


----------



## a_majoor (4 Jan 2012)

So is this blogger being overly sensitive?

http://bcblue.wordpress.com/2012/01/03/comparison-of-cbc-stories-on-liberal-conservative-mps-drinkingdriving/



> *Comparison of CBC stories on Liberal & Conservative MPs’ drinking/driving*
> January 3, 2012 — BC Blue
> 
> I noticed in this CBC story on Conservative MP Peter Goldring now sitting as a “Civil Libertarian” that Meagan Fitzpatrick made no mention of then MP Pablo Rodriguez staying within the Liberal caucus, so I asked her:
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (6 Jan 2012)

The CBC is willing to believe "unnamed sources" over the person who actually heard the tape. Hmmmmm

http://thealbertaardvark.blogspot.com/2012/01/cbc-ombudsman-essentially-finds-police.html



> The CBC Ombudsman essentially finds police chief Blair to be a liar.
> The title pretty much sums it up.
> 
> CBC Ombudsman report on Rob Ford's 911 call. (PDF)
> ...


----------



## ctjj.stevenson (7 Jan 2012)

I will just say this: if I am correct, I remember reading that the CBC's Chief Correspondant (i.e., Peter Mansbridge) used to be an officer of the RCN. Therefore, there should be a policy at the CBC that with anything Navy related, the staff of the CBC should ask Mr. Mansbridge if they are correct in the information that they are telling Canadians.


----------



## aesop081 (7 Jan 2012)

ctjj.stevenson said:
			
		

> I will just say this: if I am correct, I remember reading that the CBC's Chief Correspondant (i.e., Peter Mansbridge) used to be an officer of the RCN. Therefore, there should be a policy at the CBC that with anything Navy related, the staff of the CBC should ask Mr. Mansbridge if they are correct in the information that they are telling Canadians.



He served in 1966-67. Mansbridge served less time than the former Corporal-turned -journalist-who's- name-makes-kittens-die-if-mentioned, and we know how much we regard him as an expert.


----------



## Halifax Tar (7 Jan 2012)

SCOTT TAYLOR 

I hate cats

Anyways... My in-laws got me his book for xmas... Talk about faking a thank you...

Oh it was signed by him as well


----------



## armyvern (7 Jan 2012)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> ...
> I hate cats
> ...



We could plan a book-burning in my office when I get back from leave at the end of the month. Just sayin'.

Had to delete the rest of your post containing name and 'him' because I like cats.  ;D


----------



## The Bread Guy (7 Jan 2012)

ctjj.stevenson said:
			
		

> I will just say this: if I am correct, I remember reading that the CBC's Chief Correspondant (i.e., Peter Mansbridge) used to be an officer of the RCN. Therefore, there should be a policy at the CBC that with anything Navy related, the staff of the CBC should ask Mr. Mansbridge if they are correct in the information that they are telling Canadians.


How current do you think Mr. Mansbridge stays on naval issues, language and terminology 45 years after he was in?  I've been out more than 20 years, and a LOT has changed....


----------



## RangerRay (9 Jan 2012)

Meanwhile, in BC, the CBC (and other media outlets) shill for the BC Liberals.  For some reason, the wife of the Victoria Bureau Chief working in the Premier's Office does not constitute a conflict of interest to the CBC...

http://alexgtsakumis.com/2011/12/21/cbc-vancouvers-victoria-bureau-chief-still-in-a-blatant-conflict-of-interest-and-the-cbc-doesnt-care-so-stop-watching-them-now/



> *CBC Vancouver’s Victoria Bureau Chief STILL In a Blatant Conflict of Interest: AND THE CBC DOESN’T CARE SO STOP WATCHING THEM NOW!*
> 
> 
> Some time ago, in remarks that spawned outrage in the chattering classes, I stated, with considerable validity, that the CBC was (and remains) a culturally corrupt organization that often commits to viral conflicts of interest–and federally, spiteful hitjobs on anyone, at will, and with no regard for collateral consequences. I concluded, therefore, that they should be defrocked and privatized, instead of lasting as Canadian taxpayers $1 billion dollar millstone.
> ...


----------



## PuckChaser (9 Jan 2012)

RangerRay said:
			
		

> For some reason, the wife of the Victoria Bureau Chief working in the Premier's Office does not constitute a conflict of interest to the CBC...



It would if it were the Conservatives in power in BC....


----------



## RangerRay (9 Jan 2012)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> It would if it were the Conservatives in power in BC....



 WARNING: ff topic:

In BC, the BC Liberals are the current installment of a Liberal/Conservative coalition that has been around in one form or another since the 1940s.  This includes Social Credit which has been around from 1951 to 1991.  The provincial Tories have not been a force since the Socreds became the free-enterprise coalition, and elected it's last MLA in the 1970s.

However, due to the recent stink emanating from the BC Liberals (who have governed more as a neo-liberal corporatist party rather than a free-enterprise coalition), especially under Christy Clark (who is a big 'L' Liberal), conservative voters are fleeing to the upstart BC Conservative Party led by former Tory MP John Cummins.

The media in BC was very hard on the Socreds under Vander Zalm and the NDP in the 90s.  They have given the BC Liberals a free ride since they were elected in 2001, especially now that the Prom Queen is in charge.

Should be an interesting couple of years!  ;D


----------



## SeaKingTacco (9 Jan 2012)

Rnager Ray-

No- that was good.  For anyone who has never lived west of the Rockies, BC politics can be damned near incomprehensible.  Even if you have lived in BC, they can be incomprehensible.


----------



## a_majoor (9 Jan 2012)

Government is accelerating the spending cuts but the CBC only asks for coments from the Unions. What about taxpayers, business, economists or other people who this will affect. Reducing the tax burden on Canadians (currenty standing at @ 41% of the average family of four when Federal, Provincial, Municipal taxes and fees are added up) might be considered a good thing in some circles...

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/01/09/pol-deeper-governments-cuts.html



> *Federal cuts could be catastrophic, union says*
> Public Works, Foreign Affairs, Defence asked to cut more, more quickly
> By Louise Elliott and Greg Weston, CBC News Posted: Jan 9, 2012 5:56 PM ET Last Updated: Jan 9, 2012 8:11 PM ET Read 368 comments368
> 
> ...


----------



## exabedtech (9 Jan 2012)

Living within our means can only be a good thing.  Personally I do not see why the CBC should be subsidized to compete against private industry.  This can NEVER be a good thing.  Certainly there is a place for a public broadcaster, but I would argue that their place would be to provide broadcast services to those regions where a private interest could not operate at a profit.
That said, as TV, radio and the internet continue their rapid merger, the day when the CBC is completely irrelevant is likely fast approaching.


----------



## PuckChaser (9 Jan 2012)

I think some subsidies for CBC is a good thing, especially when they're providing local radio and news service to areas that wouldn't be profitable for a private broadcaster. However, that's where the money should stop. CBC national level programming (HNIC, TV sitcoms, etc) should stand on its own based on ad revenue like every other broadcaster, which is definitely not the case now.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (9 Jan 2012)

exabedtech said:
			
		

> Living within our means can only be a good thing.  Personally I do not see why the CBC should be subsidized to compete against private industry.  This can NEVER be a good thing.  Certainly there is a place for a public broadcaster, but I would argue that their place would be to provide broadcast services to those regions where a private interest could not operate at a profit.
> That said, as TV, radio and the internet continue their rapid merger, the day when the CBC is completely irrelevant is likely fast approaching.



Been covered a few times in the almost 30 pages of this subject.


----------



## a_majoor (10 Jan 2012)

Small scale private broadcasters and community radio stations (and even TV stations) exist to serve tiny local markets. People can even create TV stations and radio studios in their houses and podcast to a potentially global audience (although it would be smarter to go door to door and tell people your URL). Studio quality equipment is now readily available and accessable to most consumers, so there is no reason that you, personally, cannot serve these audiences.

Really, the arguments to provide subsidy to the CBC are incredibly weak, and given the vanishingly small audience (@ 7% of the national audience), the lavish scale of the subsidies that do exist are not translating into audience growth, or even retention.


----------



## a_majoor (20 Jan 2012)

CBC's Ombudsman is outed by the truth. Time for him to resign:

http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/canada/archives/2012/01/20120120-161743.html



> *Ford cleared of CBC's abuse claim*
> 
> TERRY DAVIDSON | QMI AGENCY
> 
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (23 Jan 2012)

From a wholly unexpected source, here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from _CBC News_, is a thoughtful report from someone I thought had forgotten how to think for himself:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012/01/22/f-rfa-macdonald.html


> Neil Macdonald: Media hatred and the rise of Newt Gingrich
> 
> By Neil Macdonald, CBC News
> 
> ...




Macdonald gets it pretty much right, in my opinion; we, almost all of us, live in (mostly self-imposed) "cocoons" *assuming* that nearly everything on CBC is biased against Conservatives and conservatives and that almost everything in the _blogosphere_ and AM talk radio is biased against Liberals and liberals; neither assumption is true, of course, but it makes us feel better to hold that these views are, self evidently, true.

It is, I believe, a demonstrable fact that the line which once existed between _news_ and _opinion_ has gotten very blurred - mainly, I think, because the media is responding to its market and is giving us what we want.


----------



## OldSolduer (23 Jan 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> It is, I believe, a demonstrable fact that the line which once existed between _news_ and _opinion_ has gotten very blurred - mainly, I think, because the media is responding to its market and is giving us what we want.



ER that's very true. News is based on fact - in fact, news is facts, not opinions. 

A podcaster I listen to (he is an American who loves to chastize the Democrats and Republicans with equal enthusiasm) said it best when he said "we get fed cake when someone should be making us eat our meat and vegetables" or words to that effect. He was talking about the huge US deficit, but he could be talking about what the media "feeds" us as well.

Oh and OJ is Khloe Kardashian's dad - there is your cake for the day.


----------



## Kirkhill (23 Jan 2012)

I don't know that there really is that much difference in the dissemination of news today than there was two hundred years ago.  Once upon a time the State and the Church agreed on the message and then preached it to the congregation (true of both Episcopalians and Presbyterians).  The control over the message was broken by the printing press, which allowed pamphleteers to spread their own gospel.  They continued in business by selling what their subscribers wanted.  In Britain that has resulted in Tribal Newspapers like the Telegraph and the Guardian.  In that market place everyone accepts that the news is biased and if you want to get and unbiased opinion you had better buy both papers and form it yourself.  Most people don't do that however.  As you rightly note it is much easier and more comforting to be told you are right.

The notion of the truthful, neutral messenger seems to have arisen with the rise of radio and television (and perhaps in small towns that could only support one paper).  In Britain, and in Canada, the state broadcaster allowed the State to co-opt the pulpit once again, and intentionally and consciously set out to shape the national character.   In the US that was never allowed to happen, but the messengers were kept to the neutral ground by market forces.  In order to pay off their investment the had to maintain their market share by upsetting as few people as possible.

But as time goes by and the cost of getting a message out goes down - Cable TV, Satellite TV, Radio, Printers, Faxes and of course the internet, facebook, twitter.... then the pamphleteers are back in business.  A couple of hundred years ago that was considered to be a good thing by the Americans.  I believe that they saw that in the same terms as they saw the imposition of a grid-locked system of government as a good thing.  It imposed a system of checks and balances on leaders and followers alike.  Better to have a multitude of congregations than to have 300,000,000 souls all singing "Onward Yahweh's Mujaheddin" in chorus.

The folks in Brussels and Davos are still trying to impose order on Chaos.  They have not come to terms with Entropy.  And yet levelling will eventually happen, either in an orderly fashion or catastrophically.   Currently a lot of folks seem to be headed towards a catastrophic levelling.


----------



## Rifleman62 (23 Jan 2012)

From my cocoon - Niel MacDonald has never met an Israeli or an American that was likeable or as brilliant as he is.


----------



## vonGarvin (23 Jan 2012)

Interesting absence of a story today on CBC.  

While there are hundreds of web pages reporting this, there was nothing on the CBC website.  But they were able to report on this, this  and this.


Just found it odd that it wasn't anywhere to be found on their web page is all....


----------



## Redeye (23 Jan 2012)

Why would they? It's a story about an American anniversary, which has little to do with Canada. Nothing, actually.

The only story actually reported on their news service was about Tim's cup sizes. Which I think was probably a quarter of Twitter traffic in Canada, so something apparently people were talking about. The other link was from a politics blog pertaining to an ongoing by-election, and the final bit about Kandahar pertains to CBC Radio One's Dispatches show, not news.



			
				Technoviking said:
			
		

> Interesting absence of a story today on CBC.
> 
> While there are hundreds of web pages reporting this, there was nothing on the CBC website.  But they were able to report on this, this  and this.
> 
> ...


----------



## Fishbone Jones (23 Jan 2012)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> Interesting absence of a story today on CBC.
> 
> While there are hundreds of web pages reporting this, there was nothing on the CBC website.  But they were able to report on this, this  and this.
> 
> ...



Nothing odd at all about it.

While CBC isn't above sticking their nose into America's opinions, that's what it is. American.

The Pro-life - Pro-choice debate, while important for some in this country, just doesn't have the weight to carry it as a story here. People would just skip over the article, so it makes it a waste of advertising space.


----------



## Redeye (23 Jan 2012)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Nothing odd at all about it.
> 
> While CBC isn't above sticking their nose into America's opinions, that's what it is. American.
> 
> The Pro-life - Pro-choice debate, while important for some in this country, just doesn't have the weight to carry it as a story here. People would just skip over the article, so it makes it a waste of advertising space.



Someone screenshot this! We're agreeing! (well, sort of)


----------



## a_majoor (28 Jan 2012)

A documentry which puts it all together:

http://frontpagemag.com/2012/01/26/the-cbcs-propaganda-war/print/



> *The CBC’s Propaganda War*
> Posted By Bruce Bawer On January 26, 2012 @ 12:06 am In Daily Mailer,FrontPage | 33 Comments
> 
> The only thing worse than having the biases of the mainstream media inflicted upon you on a daily basis is having to subsidize it.  For Americans, to be sure, the rip-off isn’t so terrible: the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which funds PBS and NPR, gets $430 million a year from the federal government, which comes to only a couple of bucks per household.  In Britain, by contrast, the BBC license fee is now £145.50 ($226) annually per TV-owning family.  And in Canada, the CBC receives more than $1.5 billion a year from the Canadian government, which amounts to upwards of $100 per household.
> ...


----------



## Redeye (28 Jan 2012)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> A documentry which puts it all together:
> 
> http://frontpagemag.com/2012/01/26/the-cbcs-propaganda-war/print/



Maybe I missed something. When did criticizing Israeli policy somehow become illegal, or immoral, or unjustifiable, or whatever it is this article suggests it?


----------



## Strike (28 Jan 2012)

Redeye said:
			
		

> Maybe I missed something. When did criticizing Israeli policy somehow become illegal, or immoral, or unjustifiable, or whatever it is this article suggests it?



It's certainly not illegal, but when it's a news program (like the Fifth Estate) or just regular news, one would hope that both sides of the story would be told IOT allow the viewer to make their own informed choices of who's side to favour.

When it comes to OpEd shows like George S, they can have at 'er with their opinions but they should still be truthful.


----------



## Redeye (28 Jan 2012)

Strike said:
			
		

> It's certainly not illegal, but when it's a news program (like the Fifth Estate) or just regular news, one would hope that both sides of the story would be told IOT allow the viewer to make their own informed choices of who's side to favour.



That's fair. I recall that their coverage, for example, or the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict was relatively clear and presented both sides. In fact, as I recall, it was pretty favourable to Israel.



			
				Strike said:
			
		

> When it comes to OpEd shows like George S, they can have at 'er with their opinions but they should still be truthful.



Also correct - there is a duty to report accurately. It applies not only to them, but everyone, of course. We still have laws in this country about reporting false news, fortunately.


----------



## Apple2018 (30 Jan 2012)

CBC is under attack in the House of Commons today, with 4 petitions brought forward; they only had 4000 signatures though.


----------



## GAP (30 Jan 2012)

Apple2018 said:
			
		

> CBC is under attack in the House of Commons today, with 4 petitions brought forward; they only had 4000 signatures though.



In 9 posts you have questioned the sovereignty of Canada, and you have brought us the glorious news that "CBC is under attack in the House of Commons today, with 4 petitions brought forward"

What is your point, or do you really have a point? Do a whole lot more reading before you engage your keyboard.


----------



## Sythen (31 Jan 2012)

Apple2018 said:
			
		

> CBC is under attack in the House of Commons today, with 4 petitions brought forward; they only had 4000 signatures though.



He is refering to http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/politics/archives/2012/01/20120130-211128.html I think.


----------



## Apple2018 (31 Jan 2012)

@Sythen:

That is the article dealing with the CBC...I should have pasted something!


----------



## GAP (31 Jan 2012)

Don't bother


----------



## Fishbone Jones (31 Jan 2012)

Apple2018 said:
			
		

> @Sythen:
> 
> That is the article dealing with the CBC...I should have pasted something!





			
				GAP said:
			
		

> Don't bother


Yes, please don't. We already have enough people whose whole life is posting nothing but links that most people don't look at.


----------



## Rifleman62 (31 Jan 2012)

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2012/01/31/f-vp-mcguire-ombudsman-bc-legislature.html?cmp=rss&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
*
CBC Editor in Chief responds to Ombudsman decision*

No conflict in B.C. legislature reporting, Jennifer McGuire states

By Jennifer McGuire, CBC News - Jan 31, 2012 12:13 PM PT

Jennifer McGuire is general manager and editor in chief of CBC News.


Thanks to the dedication and excellence of our staff,* CBC News is one of the most respected news organizations in the world.* As I have said many times, we should always strive to be even better by continuously examining what we do and how we do it.

The CBC is the only broadcast organization in this country with an arm's length ombudsman process.

The ombudsman is appointed by the CBC's board of directors and by the president. His mandate is to review complaints about our work and to judge them within the framework of the high standards outlined in our Journalistic Standards and Practices, by which our employees are bound.

In most cases we agree with and take into account the Ombudsman's rulings. The recent ruling on one of our reporters at the B.C. Legislature, however, is an exception where we will have to agree to disagree.

Stephen Smart is a legislative reporter based in Victoria B.C. He is married to Rebecca Scott who recently took a job as a media adviser to Premier Christy Clark.

Scott is one of six media advisers to the premier, and although she is not the senior adviser, when Stephen brought the situation to our attention we created a protocol to ensure an absence of conflict, whether real or perceived.

This protocol is in line with our Journalistic Standards and Practices and corporate policies.

The protocol itself, which is shared with senior staff in Vancouver and Toronto, explicitly states that Stephen Smart will not cover:

1. Stories in which Rebecca Scott is the principal, or sole spokesperson. 2. Stories where she is the primary source where alternate documents or materials are not available.

If there is uncertainty about Stephen's assignments, they are reviewed by Vancouver's Executive Producer or News Director. In all our coverage, story choice, assignment and lineup rests with assignment editors, producers and senior news staff. If there is a perceived conflict, the story gets assigned elsewhere.

It is important to note that both the ruling and the original complaints with the Ombudsman's office have not raised any concerns with Stephen's reporting, which we believe is a confirmation that our protocols are working effectively.

None of the reports filed by Stephen Smart have ever been found to be in breach of our journalist standards.

The news business is a tight-knit community, especially in smaller environments like the B.C. Legislature. It's inevitable that from time to time journalists may form personal relationships with people who may, one day, intersect with their professional lives.

Although the current situation is obviously not ideal, we believe we have mitigated the risks and, despite the opinion of the Ombudsman, have fulfilled our obligations to our Journalistic Standards and Practices and corporate policies, which state:

"Independence is a core value of CBC. If a current affairs or news employee has a close relative, defined as spouse, parent, child or sibling who is a major actor in a story, that employee cannot be involved in the coverage. It is the responsibility of the employee to inform his/her supervisor of the potential conflict so that a protocol can be developed."

The protocols we have created strike a balance between the need to address potential conflicts of interest and the rights of individuals to their private lives. We believe we have struck an appropriate balance in this case and believe no further action is required.

We will continue to monitor and assess what we do in BC, as is the case with all of our journalism.


----------



## RangerRay (31 Jan 2012)

Sooo...if the ombudsman says there is a conflict of interest, and management chooses to ignore the ombudsman, why does the CBC need an ombudsman?


----------



## Good2Golf (1 Feb 2012)

> The CBC is the only broadcast organization in this country with an arm's length ombudsman process.




...and at times, even greater than an arm's length, when the CBC picks and chooses when its ombudsman is right or wrong.   :


----------



## a_majoor (2 Feb 2012)

And better yet is having friends on your payroll:

http://chasingapplepie.blogspot.com/2012/02/friends-of-cbc-on-cbc-payroll.html



> *Friends of CBC on the CBC Payroll*
> 
> Did you know that three members of Friends of CBC are on the CBC payroll?  Yup! That's what Canadian Taxpayers Federation found out  through Access to Information.
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (13 Feb 2012)

Friends and enemies:

http://bcblue.wordpress.com/2012/02/13/cbc-claims-copyright-only-against-its-enemies/



> *CBC claims copyright only against its enemies*
> February 13, 2012 — BC Blue
> 
> When you are a friend of the CBC like Jamie Watt is, they apparently don’t have a problem at all with a communication company’s website like his Navigator looking like a CBC affiliate but if you are a critic, they send in the copyright police.
> ...



Since *we* own the CBC, I wonder if we can sue to get *our* copyright material back? That would be an interesting question for legal minds to ponder.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (18 Feb 2012)

I'm curious if this will actually mean anything to her career??   


http://www.torontosun.com/2012/02/17/radio-canada-ombudsman-calls-own-journalist-biased

OTTAWA - In a stinging rebuke, Radio-Canada ombudsman Pierre Tourangeau said journalist Ginette Lamarche was biased, used unverified facts and was inaccurate in her recent reporting on Israel.
Tourangeau overturned a finding by the state broadcaster's complaints department that had largely dismissed complaints from Honest Reporting Canada over five reports on Mideast issues aired last December. Tourangeau found the reports failed to show balance, impartiality, and accuracy as required by Radio-Canada's own journalistic standards.

In a December 19 radio report, Lamarche claimed "many Palestinians spend a good part of their youth in jail for participating in a demonstration or throwing stones," without citing a reliable source for this claim. According to Honest Reporting Canada, convicted stone throwers in fact spend an average of seven months behind bars.
"I am very happy with the decision obtained by Honest Reporting," said David Ouellette, associate director of Quebec public affairs with the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs, which regularly collaborates with Honest Reporting Canada.

Ouellette added they'd received many similar decisions about this journalist since 2008.
Representatives from the state broadcaster assured Ouellette last September that they took complaints related to Mideast affairs seriously.

"However," said Ouellette, "we do not notice any improvement."


brigitte.pellerin@sunmedia.ca


----------



## The Bread Guy (1 Mar 2012)

On the one hand, the CBC's 2012-13 Main Estimates (attached) show no net increase/decrease.

On the other hand, if you believe unattributed sections from this _Calgary Herald_ piece:


> .... The CBC meantime, which has an annual budget of $1.1 billion, faces a cut of at least $110 million and possibly more. Some Conservatives are pushing for even deeper cuts to the national broadcaster, based on the argument that, though the radio news service is clearly a must-have in the Far North and more generally in rural areas, CBC television is not as essential. On the immediate chopping block is a $60-million programming "top-up" that the broadcaster has received annually since 2001 ....


We'll have to see what the Budget holds in store for the Mother Corp....


----------



## Good2Golf (1 Mar 2012)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> On the one hand, the CBC's 2012-13 Main Estimates (attached) show no net increase/decrease.
> 
> On the other hand, if you believe unattributed sections from this _Calgary Herald_ piece:We'll have to see what the Budget holds in store for the Mother Corp....



Looks like there was a $340M transfer from radio (arguably the more valuable element of CBC/SRC) to TV/digital video, but otherwise $1,074M ($1.1B) is the same, as you noted, Milnew.ca.

Regards
G2G


----------



## The Bread Guy (1 Mar 2012)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Looks like there was a $340M transfer from radio (arguably the more valuable element of CBC/SRC) to TV/digital video, but otherwise $1,074M ($1.1B) is the same, as you noted, Milnew.ca.
> 
> Regards
> G2G


I saw that, too, but I noticed a similar (but not identical) increase in the "Television, Radio and Digital Services" line, so I'm guessing it's a shuffle of "radio only" $ into a newly-consolidated "radio, too" unit that also does radio.  Ah, the magic of "convergence" ....


----------



## F3m5h3p (6 Mar 2012)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> former Corporal-turned -journalist-who's- name-makes-kittens-die-if-mentioned



Awe.


----------



## Pat in Halifax (6 Mar 2012)

N. McKay said:
			
		

> Isn't it one of those trades that changes with rank, like stokers (mechanic-technician-artificer)?
> 
> If so, could someone outline the progression please?


Actually for info, as of 1 Feb 2012, it is just Marine Engineer, now MOSID 0367 (from 00121, 00122 and 00123- or in the 'old' days 311, 312 and 313). I think all will go this route eventually. The Naval Electrician  (ETech) trade did it too last year.

Pat


----------



## Gunner98 (6 Mar 2012)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Med A is now called Med Tech. PAs are a different group.



There are still (some) Med As (MOSID 00150-12 and 00150-13) in the Reserves, Med A vs Med Tech depends on qualifications (pre-hospital/primary care paramedic versus nursing assistant/hospital-based care).   In Reg Fce they all are indeed Med Techs.


----------



## OldSolduer (6 Mar 2012)

I just read that CBC has trotted out young Omar K......and are all atwitter with him.

Link

http://www.cbc.ca/video/news/audioplayer.html?clipid=2206321944


Mehar Arar, not Omar K.


----------



## fraserdw (6 Mar 2012)

Strike said:
			
		

> It's also a matter of the liaison (PAO or whoever it happens to be) emphasizing the importance of stating certain points and why.  Media aren't military.  They don't always understand how important certain things are.



In 1999, we had a PAO at Gagetown who regularly referred to M109s as "Canada's heavy tank, like the German Tiger" in her prep school accent!


----------



## medicineman (6 Mar 2012)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> I just read that CBC has trotted out young Omar K......and are all atwitter with him.



Emphasis on the root word being "TWIT"?

MM


----------



## The Bread Guy (4 Apr 2012)

How the CBC is planning to cut $115M:


> As announced in the 2012 federal budget, through its Deficit Reduction Action Plan (DRAP), the government has chosen to reduce CBC/Radio-Canada’s appropriation by $115 million over three years. CBC/Radio-Canada today outlined the plan it will implement to account for this decrease.
> 
> “When we add up the reduction to our appropriation, unavoidable cost increases, and the investments that CBC/Radio-Canada needs to make to ensure its continued transformation into a modern public broadcaster, we actually face financial pressures amounting to $200 million over the next three years,” says Hubert T. Lacroix, President and CEO. “We expect to be able to offset that with $50 million in new revenues, which leaves us with about $150 million to account for by way of reductions and operating improvements. Obviously, this will have a significant impact on our services, organization and staff; we expect that upwards of 650 positions will be eliminated over three years, including about 475 this fiscal year.”
> 
> ...


----------



## Fishbone Jones (4 Apr 2012)

> CBC/Radio-Canada will continue to bring you news and entertainment programming of the highest quality



They can't 'continue' anything, until they have a start point.

'news and entertainment programming of the highest quality' my Aunt Fanny's two axe handle sized ass :


----------



## The Bread Guy (4 Apr 2012)

recceguy said:
			
		

> They can't 'continue' anything, until they have a start point.
> 
> 'news and entertainment programming of the highest quality' my Aunt Fanny's two axe handle sized *** :


We keep telling you - you've just _gotta_ come out of your shell and tell us what you _really_ think


----------



## Remius (4 Apr 2012)

recceguy said:
			
		

> They can't 'continue' anything, until they have a start point.
> 
> 'news and entertainment programming of the highest quality' my Aunt Fanny's two axe handle sized *** :



I'm not going to lie.  I really like their radio programming.  Especially on Saturdays and Sundays.  The Vinyl Cafe, the Debaters, Day 6 etc.  Great stuff to listen to at the cottage.

As far as TV goes some of it is good too.  RMR, 22 minutes, heck I even like the Dragon's Den.  And I'm sure people here like Hockey Night in Canada.

And didn't they make A People's History?  I thought that was a pretty good production.

Not all of it is bad.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (4 Apr 2012)

Crantor said:
			
		

> I'm not going to lie.  I really like their radio programming.  Especially on Saturdays and Sundays.  The Vinyl Cafe, the Debaters, Day 6 etc.  Great stuff to listen to at the cottage.
> 
> As far as TV goes some of it is good too.  RMR, 22 minutes, heck I even like the Dragon's Den.  And I'm sure people here like Hockey Night in Canada.
> 
> ...



I don't have a cottage anymore and there is lots better stuff out there. You just have to look.

Dragon's Den I can get without CBC, if I thought it was worth watching, stopped watching 22 Minutes when their Grade 2, political rhetoric got moronic and repetitive (same as that chicken cannon bunch) and if Mercer started getting his facts before he ranted, it might not ruin the rest of his show.

But, to each, their own. I really haven't got that much time for either radio or TV anymore. If people want CBC and Radio Canada, they can pay for it. I don't want it, I shouldn't have to pay for it.


----------



## Remius (4 Apr 2012)

Agreed.  Cut funding.  Remove the Canadian Content rules they have and let them compete like everyone else.  No issues with that.


----------



## Infanteer (4 Apr 2012)

Meh, if I don't use the internet, I watch my hockey on Rodgers (either sportsnet or TSN) and my news on CTV.  CBC radio wasn't bad when travelling, but my new vehicle has Sirius satellite radio and there are far more interesting radio stations to listen to in the places in between.

Bottom line - all this stuff is funded out of my pocket at the front end (I pay for it because I like it and use it) and not taken from my tax dollars which could be better spent elsewhere (or not collected in the first place).

Cut it.


----------



## jollyjacktar (4 Apr 2012)

Crantor said:
			
		

> I'm not going to lie.  I really like their radio programming.  Especially on Saturdays and Sundays.  The Vinyl Cafe, the Debaters, Day 6 etc.
> Not all of it is bad.


Agreed.  I too admit to listening to those shows as well, including the "Irrelevant show", "As it Happens" and enjoying them all.  CBC TV can take a long hard suck on my nether regions, they have earned my scorn thanks to such as Ralph Benmurgi during the Oka times and early 90's.  But what I enjoy on Radio 1, I'd miss if it was gone.


----------



## aesop081 (9 Apr 2012)

Hows that for a biased headline !!

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012/04/09/killer-whale-military-investigation.html



> Dead killer whale possibly linked to Canadian war games



Followed, in smaller print, by :



> However, researchers may never figure out how the orca died


----------



## ModlrMike (9 Apr 2012)

I read that article this morning. Full of innuendo and supposition, short on fact.


----------



## Scott (9 Apr 2012)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> Full of innuendo and supposition, short on fact. shit.



 :nod:

I almost wet myself when I heard that the cuts are starting for them. Chuckled all day after the budget when they were devoting time to it on the radio.


----------



## GAP (9 Apr 2012)

Ever since the budget they have been wailing about the brutal cuts hurting the "Canadian People", and that the world is going to come to an end, at about the same time global warming heats things up enough to kill all the polar bears, the penquins will all fall into the water, the seals will seal, etc. etc. ...


----------



## a_majoor (9 Apr 2012)

Insanity is doing the same thing again and expecting a different result. This blogger tries the "new" CBC poll for the Alberta election and discovers (surprise) you just can't be a Wildrose supporter. You'd think after the Federal election poll fiasco they might consider hiring a different group to make a real poll...

http://climbingoutofthedark.blogspot.ca/2012/04/cbc-never-learns-biased-compass-poll.html



> CBC Never Learns! Biased Compass Poll.
> 
> Vote Compass is an educational tool developed by political scientists. Answer a short series of questions to discover how you fit in the Alberta political landscape.
> 
> ...


----------



## Scott (10 Apr 2012)

And now they are canonizing Wiebo Ludwig. :

Wow. Just wow.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (10 Apr 2012)

Scott said:
			
		

> And now they are canonizing Wiebo Ludwig. :
> 
> Wow. Just wow.



Because he was against Big Oil. 

Big Oil is the West. 

The West is responsible for Harper.

Harper is an evil tyrant, removing funding and holding CBC accountable.

An enemy of my enemy is my friend


----------



## exabedtech (10 Apr 2012)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Hows that for a biased headline !!
> 
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012/04/09/killer-whale-military-investigation.html
> 
> Followed, in smaller print, by :


That is just a fantastic piece of 'News".  Not a single link between the military 'war games' and this dead orca and yet the article goes on and on about a supposed link.
It would be funny if I weren't funding it.  I'd say it did make sense to have a CBC back when there were limited means of getting some news, but even back as far as 1994 when I was in Gjoa Haven they had internet. 
Ditch the CBC funding in its entirety.  If they are so awesome and have so much public support, they should have no problem funding themselves.... just like I do.


----------



## OldSolduer (10 Apr 2012)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Because he was against Big Oil.
> 
> Big Oil is the West.
> 
> The West is responsible for Harper.



The west....you mean Hamilton is responsible for Harper??   ;D  Its just west of Toronto!!


----------



## Journeyman (10 Apr 2012)

No, Hamilton is responsible for Sheila Copps' theft of HMCS Haida; now it's on display where no one will ever see it.  :


----------



## Rifleman62 (10 Apr 2012)

recceguy: 





> Harper is an evil tyrant, removing funding and *holding CBC accountable*.



Am I missing something? Reduced the CBC budget a tiny bit; holding CBC accountable??


----------



## Edward Campbell (10 Apr 2012)

It's not the CBC, but this is the headline froma story in the _Globe and Mail_: Ottawa police investigating missing funds at Rockcliffe Park public school.

The story starts: _"Ottawa police are investigating the disappearance of about $70,000 from the school council bank account at Rockcliffe Park public school, which has educated children of politicians including Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

The school council’s executive posted a message on its website on Tuesday saying that the missing funds could affect the milk program, a pizza initiative that funds a Grade 6 trip and an after-school homework club."_

And here is the picture that accompanies the story:






Canada's Prime Minister Stephen Harper reads to students at Rockcliffe Park Public School in Ottawa October 13, 2006.

Chris Wattie/REUTERS

Money missing ... Harper stole it!


----------



## vonGarvin (10 Apr 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Money missing ... Harper stole it!


And read the title of the book.  He's an ogre.


----------



## Rifleman62 (15 Apr 2012)

The always fair and balanced, ethical CBC has this headline. Any resemblance to the actual article or the truth? The CBC knows that this PM ALWAYS pays his own way. 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/04/13/harper-baseball-trip.html

*Harper's baseball trip hit taxpayers with $45,000 tab*
By Louise Elliott, CBC News Apr 14, 2012

A blower's response:

http://paulsrants-paulsstuff.blogspot.com/2012/04/will-james-moore-once-again-defend-cbc.html

Saturday, April 14, 2012

*Will James Moore Once Again Defend The CBC Over This Crap?*

A perfect example of why the cuts to CBC were far short of where they need to be. In what no one could say is not a partisan attack against the PM, CBC gives Canadians a glimpse of paid top-dollar journalism for tabloid worthy news headlines.

In fact, the CBC itself outs itself only two paragraphs after the first, which includes this gem:

"Prime Minister Stephen Harper's Labour Day-weekend trip to Manhattan last fall, which *included coveted tickets to a New York Yankees game* *and a Broadway show*, cost Canadian taxpayers at least $45,000, documents reveal."

And if anyone took the time to read the entire story, they come to this:

"A spokesperson for the prime minister told CBC News that *Harper covered the cost of both the flight and accommodations for himself, his daughter and two guests on the flight. He also covered the costs of tickets to the game for himself and his guests.*

"Prime Minister Harper makes it a practice of reimbursing the government for personal travel," spokesperson Julie Vaux wrote in an email. "As the prime minister is prohibited from flying commercial for security reasons, he also compensates the government for the cost of an equivalent commercial flight. In this case, he compensated for the flight for himself, his daughter, and guests at the cost of a commercial fare for each."

It's time once again for everyone to start sending complaints to the CBC ombudsman, as well as James Moore, telling him this type of trash journalism should not be paid for by the Canadian taxpayer.


----------



## Scott (15 Apr 2012)

Letter sent.

Re: the above tripe, vote compasses, spurious polls.


----------



## jollyjacktar (15 Apr 2012)

Me too, letter to the ombudsman of the CBC.  Thanks for the inspiration, Scott.


----------



## Edward Campbell (15 Apr 2012)

Not CBC, not bias, but journalistic *stupidity* of the highest order is reported in this artcle which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

My emphasis added
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/no-plans-for-thomas-mulcair-to-shave-his-beard/article2402968/


> No plans for Thomas Mulcair to shave his beard
> 
> ANNE MCILROY
> 
> ...




This is an interview on a _national_ political/public affairs programme - it airs in the same Sunday morning _serious_ time slot as e.g. "Meet The Press" and "Fareed Zakaria GPS" - and the guest is the Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, the prime minister in f'ing waiting, and numbnuts asks about his goddamn beard! Craig Oliver is both a fool and a waste of bandwidth. Who in their right minds gives a rat's ass about Mr Mulcair's facial hair? Does Oliver think other Canadians are as shallow and stupid as he is? He, Oliver, had precious, expensive seconds to ask Mulcair real, hard political questions but he's a TV journalist and this is Canada so we get juvenile bullshit.


----------



## cupper (15 Apr 2012)

> Not CBC, not bias, but journalistic stupidity of the highest order is reported in this artcle which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail:
> 
> My emphasis added
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/no-plans-for-thomas-mulcair-to-shave-his-beard/article2402968/
> ...



Seriously?  :facepalm:

Now I really am offended by the implications of having formed opinions based on CBC info.


----------



## vonGarvin (15 Apr 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Who in their right minds gives a rat's ass about Mr Mulcair's facial hair?


  Other than Mr. Mulcair, and maybe his wife, probably nobody.


			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Does Oliver think other Canadians are as shallow and stupid as he is?


I believe that Canadians, generally, are both shallow and stupid.  Any browsing of pop culture and what passes as rational thought at all levels ought to be an indicator of that.


			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> He, Oliver, had precious, expensive seconds to ask Mulcair real, hard political questions but he's a TV journalist and this is Canada so we get juvenile bullshit.


Agreed.


----------



## jollyjacktar (15 Apr 2012)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> I believe that Canadians, generally, are both shallow and stupid.  Any browsing of pop culture and what passes as rational thought at all levels ought to be an indicator of that.


Boy, are you a master of understatement or what.


----------



## a_majoor (20 Apr 2012)

When the insides are saying this, you know the CBC is beyond redemption. Kill it with cleansing fire....

http://www.ottawasun.com/2012/04/19/broadcast-blues



> *Former CBC executive battles with status-quo elites in tell-all book that’s a must-read*
> 
> BY BRIAN LILLEY	 ,PARLIAMENTARY BUREAU
> FIRST POSTED: THURSDAY, APRIL 19, 2012 08:44 PM EDT | UPDATED: THURSDAY, APRIL 19, 2012 08:51 PM EDT
> ...


----------



## GAP (22 Apr 2012)

CBC demands more money while refusing to release key information
By Brian Lilley, Parliamentary Bureau 
Article Link

OTTAWA - CBC wants more money from Canadians to pay for local services but isn't willing to say exactly what that money will buy.

Last week CBC appeared before the CRTC, Canada's broadcast regulator, arguing in favour of keeping a pool of money called the Local Programming Improvement Fund available to television station owners. The fund was set up a few years ago to offset the loss in ad revenue caused by the worldwide economic collapse in 2008.

Facing hard times, broadcasters turned to their MPs and pushed for a new source of money, which led to the creation of the fund. CBC's slice of the pie, paid for by a levy on Canadian cable and satellite companies, is $40 million.

But while the state broadcaster says it needs more money from hard working Canadians to keep local operations going, it is also working hard to keep details of local operations secret.

A request for details on the cost of their new studios in Hamilton, Ont., including the acquisition, renovation and furnishing of a decrepit old building in the city's downtown core, was granted -- with plenty of information removed.

CBC cited security concerns, competitive issues and privacy in refusing to release what they are spending taxpayers money on.


Several documents that were released had most relevant details removed.

One document makes reference to $23,824 spent on interior furnishings. No costs were released on the acquisition of the building, nor did the state broadcaster release costs for the interior designers mentioned in the documents.

CBC became subject to the Access to Information Act in 2007. Since then, they have received failing grades for failure to comply with the law and lost two court challenges where they attempted to keep their secrets from being made public. 
end


----------



## ModlrMike (22 Apr 2012)

Ironic that the organization the regularly lashes the Conservatives about secrecy consistently fails to follow the Access to Information Act.


----------



## Good2Golf (23 Apr 2012)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> Ironic that the organization the regularly lashes the Conservatives about secrecy consistently fails to follow the Access to Information Act.



...but they're journalists...they're above all others.

Heck, CSE discloses more information about its operations than the CBC for gosh sake.


Disappointed,
G2G


----------



## Maxadia (23 Apr 2012)

I'd like to see an official cost efficiency analysis regarding the funding for the F35 program vs. the funding for the CBC.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (23 Apr 2012)

Awhile back I reviewing an ATIP sent to the RCMP and noting the many blank sheets and lack of information in general. I have to wonder if they took lessons from the CBC.


----------



## PJGary (24 Apr 2012)

News Link: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/albertavotes2012/story/2012/04/23/albertavotes2012-election-results.html



> Albertans elect Tory majority government
> CBC News
> Posted: Apr 23, 2012 8:00 PM MT Last Updated: Apr 23, 2012 11:46 PM MT
> 
> ...



Because no one would _ever_ vote for a Conservative gov't because they actually _wanted_ one, right Ignatieff?

On the bright side it's good to know the CBC is putting my f***ing money to good use, hiring a mind reader  :facepalm:


----------



## Journeyman (24 Apr 2012)

Yes, the *twelfth* consecutive  Conservative majority in the Province. 

There must be _some_ excuse to explain this.....recurring.....uh, situatuion.


----------



## vonGarvin (24 Apr 2012)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Yes, the *twelfth* consecutive  Conservative majority in the Province.
> 
> There must be _some_ excuse to explain this.....recurring.....uh, situatuion.



Yes.  The people there are obviously idiots who haven't "seen the light".  Neither are they realists.  Mental capacity _must_ be lower there.  Because, as we all know, facts are facts and they tell us that you ought never to vote conservative, because they are fools.  


[/sarcasm]


----------



## Kat Stevens (24 Apr 2012)

Oil money and farm money make Albertans dumb. Me no vote PC? Me must be unsane.


----------



## exabedtech (24 Apr 2012)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> Yes.  The people there are obviously idiots who haven't "seen the light".  Neither are they realists.  Mental capacity _must_ be lower there.  Because, as we all know, facts are facts and they tell us that you ought never to vote conservative, because they are fools.
> 
> 
> [/sarcasm]



Ya, we sure must be!  Poor old Alberta has been run right into the ground... so hard to make a decent living, can't seem to balance that nasty budget, no growth... just a terrible state of affairs we are in!  If things were any worse, people would think this was Ontario!!!   lol


----------



## OldSolduer (24 Apr 2012)

Don't you Albertans know that Ottawa knows what's best for you?


----------



## exabedtech (24 Apr 2012)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> Don't you Albertans know that Ottawa knows what's best for you?



Like the great Stewie Griffin once sang... "Establishment, Establishment, you always know what's best"


----------



## Maxadia (24 Apr 2012)

Not sure how many of you actually live in the province, but sorry....it's not just another biased opinion (THIS time....someone write down the date  ;D)

Everyone here thought it was going to be a Wildrose majority.....no one ever thought the PC's would come back in again.


http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/Numbers+tell+story+tight+Alberta+election+contest/6512883/story.html

EDMONTON - With a 61-seat majority handed to Premier Alison Redford’s Conservatives, it would be easy for a casual observer to think Monday’s provincial election was not such a contest after all.

But while the map may paint northern Alberta largely Tory blue and the southern part of the province outside Calgary mainly Wildrose green, a deeper look at Elections Alberta’s unofficial results show many tight races won or lost by just a few hundred votes.

“You look at the seat totals and it’s easy to think landslide, but it hides all the races going on at the constituency level,” said University of Alberta political scientist Lori Thorlakson, who is the lead investigator on an election study that will analyze Monday’s results and voters’ motivations. “They were pretty close. A lot of those I couldn’t believe how close they were....."


----------



## exabedtech (25 Apr 2012)

RDJP said:
			
		

> Not sure how many of you actually live in the province, but sorry....it's not just another biased opinion (THIS time....someone write down the date  ;D)
> 
> Everyone here thought it was going to be a Wildrose majority.....no one ever thought the PC's would come back in again.
> 
> ...



Guess it depends where you are whether or not you thought that were possible.  From my vantage point, the WR weren't going anywhere.  A week ago I felt differently, but the huge grassroots movement to elect anyone but them made it pretty unlikely.  As long as they continue to alienate the younger vote, they won't have a chance.  A ton of people who otherwise would have gone NDP or *spits on ground* Liberal instead backed Allison solely to keep the WR at bay.

Yes, i'm in Alberta, but I have a lot of friends in health care, in community work, volunteer work and education.  On top of that is the fact that the usually absent 'young' vote has been showing a tendency to mobilize over social media to a specific cause.  In this case it was largely the 'conscience rights' that offended the university crowd.  10 years ago, everyone would have said 'who cares', but after the arab spring and our own federal election which put the NDP into official opposition, that group can no longer be ignored.


----------



## HB_Pencil (25 Apr 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Not CBC, not bias, but journalistic *stupidity* of the highest order is reported in this artcle which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:
> 
> My emphasis added
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/no-plans-for-thomas-mulcair-to-shave-his-beard/article2402968/
> ...



I think you're being a bit harsh on Oliver, and a bit easy on the US programs. David Gregory has been known to ask dumb *** questions all  the time. The worst is the near obligatory "will you run for X" then the insipid parsing of any vagaries at all. He's often off the mark as well with his questioning. That program has really taken a fall since the death of Russert. None of the others really come close. The only reason why I watch that program is to see the insider round table, and there its mainly to hear David Brooks's take on one issue or another.


----------



## JorgSlice (25 Apr 2012)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> The always fair and balanced, ethical CBC has this headline. Any resemblance to the actual article or the truth? The CBC knows that this PM ALWAYS pays his own way.
> 
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/04/13/harper-baseball-trip.html
> 
> ...



I received this reply from the office of the Ombudsman:



> Thank you for your e-mail of April 20 addressed to Kirk LaPointe, CBC Ombudsman, drawing our attention to a CBCNews.ca story posted on April 14 under the headline, “Harper’s baseball trip hit taxpayers with $45,000 tab”.  You described it as a “tabloid headline” and a “partisan attack” on the prime minister, pointing out that story reveals that the prime minster reimbursed the government for the cost of his and his guests’ travel.
> 
> While I certainly regret you are disappointed in CBC, I must tell you, respectfully, that your view is not one I share. Allow me to explain why.
> 
> ...



Interesting indeed.

I sent a reply stating:

"So why is it then that any other Prime Minister (especially those that are Liberal) were not put into the article to compare with the costs incurred by the current PM, The RHon Mr. Stephen Harper? I am sure he's not the only one to have done this and there's probably one out there that incurred more costs. Where's that information?"


----------



## a_majoor (25 Apr 2012)

Given the actual numbers of viewers the CBC has, I'm thinking the Maytag repairman gets more business than the CBC Ombudsman, which may explain his detachment from reality.


----------



## Redeye (26 Apr 2012)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Given the actual numbers of viewers the CBC has, I'm thinking the Maytag repairman gets more business than the CBC Ombudsman, which may explain his detachment from reality.



Considering that it records more news viewers than any other network in Canada (and more people watch CNN than either of its competitors, CTV NewsNet or that joke that is Sun News, I'd say that we can fairly safely dismiss this statement.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/sun-news-network-turns-old-continues-spark-controversy-080008845.html

Notwithstanding that, controversy over travel expenses isn't new - and it was made fairly clear, I think, that flight costs include amortized capital costs etc and thus sound wildly exaggerated. I think that while the story is in a sense accurate, it still sensationalizes the event a little.


----------



## armyvern (26 Apr 2012)

Redeye said:
			
		

> ...
> Notwithstanding that, controversy over travel expenses isn't new - and it was made fairly clear, I think, that flight costs include amortized capital costs etc and thus sound wildly exaggerated. I think that while the story is in a sense accurate, it still sensationalizes the event a little.



PM Harper did the normal thing, he reimbursed for the personal portion of the trip costs - voluntarily. Where are the comparisons? Did Chretien do this? Did Chretien or _any_ other PM reimburse the Crown 100% of total trip costs?  

That is what this article infers the current PM should be doing, but isn't and therefore, must be evil. 

The bias would be even more so should it be shown that ex-PM Chretien or previous of same _red_side manner did not reimburse taxpayers any expenses. Where was the outrage then? The headlines from the CBC? Or even a simple statement to that fact in this article? Apparently, when 2 parties share a bedside manner - overlooking is allowed.


----------



## Redeye (26 Apr 2012)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> PM Harper did the normal thing, he reimbursed for the personal portion of the trip costs - voluntarily. Where are the comparisons? Did Chretien do this? Did Chretien or _any_ other PM reimburse the Crown 100% of total trip costs?
> 
> That is what this article infers the current PM should be doing, but isn't and therefore, must be evil.
> 
> The bias would be even more so should it be shown that ex-PM Chretien or previous of same _red_side manner did not reimburse taxpayers any expenses. Where was the outrage then? The headlines from the CBC? Or even a simple statement to that fact in this article? Apparently, when 2 parties share a bedside manner - overlooking is allowed.



A lot of people got up in arms because the Prime Minister had a the audacity to take a vacation. Given his office, he can't just take a commercial flight and travel on his own. That's what it doesn't really explain very well. His paying his share of the expense is a token gesture, but it's nevertheless meaningful. Couple that with the fact that the cost isn't the incremental cost of the flight, and it sounds outrageous to those predisposed to be pissed off at the PM, even though the amount of money is still really trivial in the grand scheme.

There's a pattern to it though - look at Bev Oda, who reimbursed the extra expenses outside of guidelines - but it appears only after the press outed her for doing so. That's why it draws attention.


----------



## OldSolduer (26 Apr 2012)

It all boils down to this:

The CBC hates Conservatives.


----------



## Redeye (26 Apr 2012)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> It all boils down to this:
> 
> The CBC hates Conservatives.



They were just as vigourous in going after the Liberals during "AdScam". That's the job of the press.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (26 Apr 2012)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> It all boils down to this:
> 
> The CBC hates Conservatives.



The sooner their funding stops, the sooner those leftist elitists will fade to oblivion. Just one more stepping stone on our country's move to the modern age.

There is no requirement for a State TV station here. It is Canada, not Canukistan.


----------



## Redeye (26 Apr 2012)

recceguy said:
			
		

> The sooner their funding stops, the sooner those leftist elitists will fade to oblivion. Just one more stepping stone on our country's move to the modern age.
> 
> There is no requirement for a State TV station here. It is Canada, not Canukistan.



What State TV station? If your argument had any validity, then they'd be singing the company song and telling us all about how great the government of the day is - rather than questioning its motives.


----------



## aesop081 (26 Apr 2012)

Redeye said:
			
		

> What State TV station?



Ok, how about this:

Broadcast arm of the Liberal/NDP parties

??


----------



## Edward Campbell (26 Apr 2012)

I have no doubt that the CBC, broadly and generally, is anti-conservative (as the word is broadly used) and that leads it to be anti-Conservative, too. The fact that the Conservative Party is the government and is, therefore, "fair game" anyway just makes the inherent bias 'acceptable.' But I am not convinced that the CBC is pro-Liberal or pro-NDP. I believe the CBC, again broadly and generally, reflects the views and attitudes of the young, generally well educated, urban, Central Canadian, multicultural community from which most of its executive, managers, journalists and programmers are drawn. A Conservative Party that adheres, broadly, to conservative values represents a different community: older, somewhat less well educated, rural, Western Canadian and _Anglo_.

So: is there a bias? Yes, in my opinion there is. Is it anti-Conservative? Yes. Is it, therefore, pro Liberal or pro NDP? No.


----------



## GAP (26 Apr 2012)

As has been stated there are mandates within mandates regarding the CBC. 

The vision of providing services to remote areas has, in my opinion, worked well and is valued. I don't know if that day is done, what with satellite TV service available. 

The radio service still serves a purpose, again in remote areas.

The rest should stand on a commercial basis.


----------



## OldSolduer (26 Apr 2012)

Isn't the CBCs most profitable venture Hockey Night In Canada? I could be wrong. 

It seems that the rest of the government agencies are being asked to transform, but CBC seems to be stuck....or am I reading it wrong?


----------



## bridges (26 Apr 2012)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> It seems that the rest of the government agencies are being asked to transform, but CBC seems to be stuck....or am I reading it wrong?



The CBC has had its budget cut with virtually every government of the last couple of decades.  I don't think this meets the definition of "stuck"... but I could be wrong.  

The CBC is owned by, and exists to provide a service to, the Canadian public - a service that is not always profitable, but is important nonetheless.   People who believe that unprofitable things can be important will tend to support the CBC being partially publicly funded.  Those who think only profitable things are important  will tend to think it should be de-funded.   And so the debate continues - seems to me that it's all about a person's underlying philosophy.

By the way, for those who think the CBC is only for young urbanites:  my older, rural, western-Canadian parents rely on it - as do many of their peers.


----------



## Journeyman (26 Apr 2012)

bridges said:
			
		

> Those who think only profitable things are important will tend to think it should be de-funded.


I'm just going to assume that you didn't read _any_ of the previous posts.....or the thread's title. It's about bias, not profit.

But thanks for playing along.


----------



## Remius (26 Apr 2012)

They need to be more transparent about their budget and expenses.  Tax payers fund it, taxpayers have a right to know.  I realise that they need to keep certain things from getting out, like how much they bid on certain contracts etc.  But things like where their reporters and anchors stayed during the Olympics and what they paid or how much their 65th anniversary bashes are costing are things we have a right to know.


----------



## OldSolduer (26 Apr 2012)

I agree with the transparency. If this were DND the press would be all over us about "lack of transparency" "cover up" etc


----------



## Fishbone Jones (26 Apr 2012)

Redeye said:
			
		

> What State TV station? If your argument had any validity, then they'd be singing the company song and telling us all about how great the government of the day is - rather than questioning its motives.



Sorry. If CA hadn't linked I would have missed you, because you're on Ignore.

Anyway, I consider your response in the same light as to it's validity. Meaning, it has none.


----------



## larry Strong (26 Apr 2012)

Redeye said:
			
		

> Considering that it records more news viewers than any other network in Canada (and more people watch CNN than either of its competitors, CTV NewsNet or that joke that is Sun News, I'd say that we can fairly safely dismiss this statement.



As of last week CBC News did not even get into the top 30. I went back a couple of months, week by week and the only CBC program that did was the Hockey programs.


----------



## Remius (26 Apr 2012)

Larry Strong said:
			
		

> As of last week CBC News did not even get into the top 30. I went back a couple of months, week by week and the only CBC program that did was the Hockey programs.



The only problem with that period of time is the playoffs.  CBC news is shoved in between periods as shortened verisons or pushed back.  That may be skewing the numbers somewhat.

This article quotes numbers from Aug to Mar 2012 with the numbers comparing the various networks. Not necessarily newscasts or news programs.  just a comparison with networks.  CBC news network does indeed lead the other networks. 

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/04/18/sun-news-network-turns-first-anniversary_n_1433521.html

Edited to add missing link


----------



## larry Strong (26 Apr 2012)

Crantor said:
			
		

> The only problem with that period of time is the playoffs.  CBC news is shoved in between periods as shortened verisons or pushed back.  That may be skewing the numbers somewhat.
> 
> This article quotes numbers from Aug to Mar 2012 with the numbers comparing the various networks. Not necessarily newscasts or news programs.  just a comparison with networks.  CBC news network does indeed lead the other networks.



Link?


----------



## Remius (26 Apr 2012)

Whoops.  here you go.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/04/18/sun-news-network-turns-first-anniversary_n_1433521.html


----------



## bridges (26 Apr 2012)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> I'm just going to assume that you didn't read _any_ of the previous posts.....or the thread's title. It's about bias, not profit.
> 
> But thanks for playing along.



I read some of the posts, not all 31 pages.  Several of the posts talked about funding & profitability, issues that generally go hand-in-hand with perceived bias when folks are talking about the CBC.  Often the people who are particularly angry about perceived bias seem to take the most umbrage with the current funding model.

Even if the discussion of profit were unrelated, which it's not, there's no rule against pursuing any of the tangents in a thread, or introducing new ones for that matter.    

As for bias - I echo other posters that, if anything, there may be a bias against the government of the day - whatever party is in power.   Consider the CBC part of HM Loyal Opposition.     There are also many aspects of CBC coverage that have nothing to do with politics.   Probably a good idea to keep that balance as long as we can.


----------



## Redeye (26 Apr 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I have no doubt that the CBC, broadly and generally, is anti-conservative (as the word is broadly used) and that leads it to be anti-Conservative, too. The fact that the Conservative Party is the government and is, therefore, "fair game" anyway just makes the inherent bias 'acceptable.' But I am not convinced that the CBC is pro-Liberal or pro-NDP. I believe the CBC, again broadly and generally, reflects the views and attitudes of the young, generally well educated, urban, Central Canadian, multicultural community from which most of its executive, managers, journalists and programmers are drawn. A Conservative Party that adheres, broadly, to conservative values represents a different community: older, somewhat less well educated, rural, Western Canadian and _Anglo_.
> 
> So: is there a bias? Yes, in my opinion there is. Is it anti-Conservative? Yes. Is it, therefore, pro Liberal or pro NDP? No.



Put another way, they reflect what seems to be the mindset of the majority of Canadians (who, according to voting results, do not support the Conservative Party - nor any party for that matter). I agree with your assessment that perhaps it's "anti-Conservative", but I don't think it's any more "anti-Conservative" than it is pro any party. If it was, it wouldn't have covered things like AdScam as critically is anything the Conservatives do. To suggest otherwise is just not true.


----------



## Redeye (26 Apr 2012)

Larry Strong said:
			
		

> As of last week CBC News did not even get into the top 30. I went back a couple of months, week by week and the only CBC program that did was the Hockey programs.



You'll notice I (and the link, citing BBM) referred _specifically_ to news programming - not TV in general. CBC leads in that specific area.


----------



## PuckChaser (26 Apr 2012)

Redeye said:
			
		

> (who, according to voting results, do not support the Conservative Party - nor any party for that matter)



That is such an awful argument. The last time we had a government with at least 50% of the popular vote or high was the Conservatives in 1984. Before that, it was 1958 with, surprise surprise, the Conservatives under Diefenbaker. But at least you put down that no party enjoys popular support, which in itself is a misnomer since we've never had more than 80% of the voters show up for an election.


----------



## Remius (26 Apr 2012)

Careful redeye.  the link you and I posted is about 24hr News networks not programming per se.

CBC the National might have less viewers than CTV News.  I'm not sure.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (26 Apr 2012)

Never let a poor argument get in the way of extraneous facts


----------



## Redeye (26 Apr 2012)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> That is such an awful argument. The last time we had a government with at least 50% of the popular vote or high was the Conservatives in 1984. Before that, it was 1958 with, surprise surprise, the Conservatives under Diefenbaker. But at least you put down that no party enjoys popular support, which in itself is a misnomer since we've never had more than 80% of the voters show up for an election.



So, by the facts you have stated, indeed, it's not really reasonable to suggest that any party enjoys the support of the majority of Canadians. and those who don't bother to vote, it's fairly reasonable to assume I'd say, can't be counted to support any party.


----------



## bridges (26 Apr 2012)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Never let a poor argument get in the way of extraneous facts



:rofl:


----------



## vonGarvin (26 Apr 2012)

Redeye said:
			
		

> They were just as vigourous in going after the Liberals during "AdScam". That's the job of the press.


That's the whole point.  They went after the Liberals for "AdScam".  They are going after the conservatives with equal vigour for much, much less.


----------



## PuckChaser (27 Apr 2012)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> That's the whole point.  They went after the Liberals for "AdScam".  They are going after the conservatives with equal vigour for much, much less.



Exactly. $45,000 is a drop in the bucket compared to the billions the Liberals stole. In fact, I think if the Conservatives do cancel the F-35 and we incur cancellation penalties, they'll burn in the media for the cancellation fees even though the media is manufacturing the outrage to cancel the MOU in the first place.


----------



## Redeye (27 Apr 2012)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Exactly. $45,000 is a drop in the bucket compared to the billions the Liberals stole. In fact, I think if the Conservatives do cancel the F-35 and we incur cancellation penalties, they'll burn in the media for the cancellation fees even though the media is manufacturing the outrage to cancel the MOU in the first place.



Er, sorry, what billions, exactly?!

As far as the F-35 goes, they probably will get all sorts of coverage over cancellation fees if they apply. Just like the Liberals did when they cancelled the EH-101. See how that works? The government of the day gets criticized by the press regardless of what party they are.

And the fact is, in the eyes of a fair number of Canadians, the principle of the matter, not the amount is what counts. The Conservatives ran on a platform that included lofty statements about things like accountability and transparency. They, therefore, can be expected to be particularly scrutinized on issues where those principles come up.


----------



## PuckChaser (27 Apr 2012)

Adscam, Shawinigate, HRDC Boondoggle.... but the Liberals were totally accountable for their actions.  :


----------



## Redeye (27 Apr 2012)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Adscam, Shawinigate, HRDC Boondoggle.... but the Liberals were totally accountable for their actions.  :



AdScam - around $14 million
Shawinigate - $615,000 loan (can't find any data on it being paid back or not), $164,000 grant that was possibly influenced by the PMO. But may have met guidelines for existing programs.
HRDC Boondoggle - for which people were arrested and prosecuted - was trumpeted as a "billion dollar boondoggle", but the actual extent of it was substantially smaller, despite lots of hyperbole.

So, allow me to ask you again, what billions? And as far as accountability goes, the Liberals were thrown out of office in the federal election that followed. That's how the system works, is it not? That paved the way for all those bold claims about transparency and accountability for the party that prorogued Parliament to avoid a vote of non-confidence, and is keeps getting caught up little stories like that which undermine those claims a bit.

Incidentally, all of those scandals you covered were extremely well and critically covered by the CBC, and other "left leaning" media at the time.


----------



## bridges (27 Apr 2012)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> the media is manufacturing the outrage to cancel the MOU in the first place.



The media didn't manufacture my outrage - I don't know about anyone else's.


----------



## aesop081 (2 May 2012)

Nope, no bias at all......

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/05/01/pol-vp-greg-weston-harper-anniversary.html



> Harper's real agenda visible in budget bill





> A year after the country last went to the polls, Stephen Harper has assumed the near-dictatorial powers


----------



## SeaKingTacco (2 May 2012)

To be fair- Greg Weston is a columnist and political commentator.  He is under no obligation to approach the truth, as he is not presenting "news"- he is offering opinion.


----------



## Scott (2 May 2012)

I received a reply to my complaint about political bias, polls used and broken vote compasses but it's a load of malarky and not worth taking the time to copy and paste here. I started to reply but thought better of it and decided to make better use of my time.

Besides their steadfast denial that they could actually improve, they take a pretty snotty tone in their replies. But I will admit that it was a long reply and appeared to be well thought out, even if it lacked much in the way of desire to improve. Basically it felt holier than thou. Whoda' thunk that?


----------



## jollyjacktar (2 May 2012)

Scott said:
			
		

> I received a reply to my complaint about political bias, polls used and broken vote compasses but it's a load of malarky and not worth taking the time to copy and paste here. I started to reply but thought better of it and decided to make better use of my time.
> 
> Besides their steadfast denial that they could actually improve, they take a pretty snotty tone in their replies. But I will admit that it was a long reply and appeared to be well thought out, even if it lacked much in the way of desire to improve. Basically it felt holier than thou. Whoda' thunk that?


Sounds like the same reply I received as well.  You're right about the snotty and high horsed attitude of the author.


----------



## The Bread Guy (2 May 2012)

Scott said:
			
		

> Besides their steadfast denial that they could actually improve, they take a pretty snotty tone in their replies. But I will admit that it was a long reply and appeared to be well thought out, even if it lacked much in the way of desire to improve. Basically it felt holier than thou. Whoda' thunk that?





			
				jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Sounds like the same reply I received as well.  You're right about the snotty and high horsed attitude of the author.


I'm guessing that in a megalith the size of the CBC, it's not a single "author" who does these things.  If it's like government, it's sorta "written by committee", with many poking their spoon into the pot to stir.  That also explains the high-end, non-plain-text responses.



			
				Scott said:
			
		

> I received a reply to my complaint about political bias, polls used and broken vote compasses but it's a load of malarky and not worth taking the time to copy and paste here. *I started to reply but thought better of it and decided to make better use of my time.*


Good call


----------



## Rifleman62 (2 May 2012)

My favorite line is: 





> First, it will be reviewed by a Commons finance committee ill-equipped to deal with environmental, immigration and other non-fiscal matters.



But Greg Weston is well equipped to judge that a Commons finance committee is ill-equipped to deal with .......

My opinion of Greg Weston and his abilities have not changed. Pompous is one word descriptor. 

SeaKingTacco: On CBC radio yesterday, he was not introduced as 





> Greg Weston is a columnist and political commentator.



He was introduced as CBC's Senior Political Analyst.


----------



## a_majoor (3 May 2012)

Good for me but not for thee....

http://bcblue.wordpress.com/2012/04/30/media-think-cbc-ceo-lacroix-120-lunches-are-ok-but-not-odas-16-oj/



> *Media think CBC CEO Lacroix $120 lunches are OK but not Oda’s $16 OJ*
> April 30, 2012 — BC Blue
> 
> The Ottawa Press Gallery members would never hold one of their own to the same standards they demand of a government minister especially when that person runs the CBC.
> ...


----------



## The_Falcon (6 May 2012)

I was wondering were Weston was, he used to be the national political guy for Quebecor.  I always thought it odd since he was always attacking Harper.


----------



## Redeye (6 May 2012)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Good for me but not for thee....
> 
> http://bcblue.wordpress.com/2012/04/30/media-think-cbc-ceo-lacroix-120-lunches-are-ok-but-not-odas-16-oj/



Fair enough comment for a simpleton who doesn't realize that the OJ wasn't the problem - it was switching hotels and travel arrangements. And that it wasn't the first time she's been caught doing it. Just saying.


----------



## aesop081 (6 May 2012)

Redeye said:
			
		

> who doesn't realize that the OJ wasn't the problem



It might not have been the problem but you sure heard all about it from the media.......repeatedly.

Just sayin'

 :


----------



## Redeye (6 May 2012)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> It might not have been the problem but you sure heard all about it from the media.......repeatedly.
> 
> Just sayin'
> 
> :



Yes, and from pretty much all media outlets. I saw the story first on the G&M's website. Why did they highlight that in the headline? Because it was a hook to get people to read the story. And there is a story there - and it's not a new one. All the attempts at moral equivalence in the world don't change that.


----------



## Brad Sallows (8 May 2012)

These stories are not undesirable.  The Conservatives will commit fewer blunders to avoid a microscope that constantly observes.  Fewer blunders means more likelihood of re-election.

Between the media concensus that the US is "ungovernable" and the Canadian system is "near-dictatorial", I wonder what form of government would meet their approval.  It could not possibly be a function of party rather than structure, surely.


----------



## bridges (8 May 2012)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Between the media concensus that the US is "ungovernable" and the Canadian system is "near-dictatorial", I wonder what form of government would meet their approval.  It could not possibly be a function of party rather than structure, surely.



Not that I speak for the media, but my guess is that a couple of things would have to change:
1.  The "first past the post" system would have to be massaged into something that more closely reflects the popular vote; and
2.  Governing parties would have to stick to the principles that got them there, even after they're in power, and quit trying to sneak stuff past us.   :rofl:

But IMO, the media as a group is another part of our quasi-democratic system - a complement to HM Loyal Opposition, if you will.  If they're investigating things that the government (any government) is doing, which we wouldn't otherwise know about, I'd think that our society is well served by their presence-?


----------



## DBA (8 May 2012)

bridges said:
			
		

> Not that I speak for the media, but my guess is that a couple of things would have to change:
> 1.  The "first past the post" system would have to be massaged into something that more closely reflects the popular vote; and
> 2.  Governing parties would have to stick to the principles that got them there, even after they're in power, and quit trying to sneak stuff past us.   :rofl:
> 
> But IMO, the media as a group is another part of our quasi-democratic system - a complement to HM Loyal Opposition, if you will.  If they're investigating things that the government (any government) is doing, which we wouldn't otherwise know about, I'd think that our society is well served by their presence-?



The +'s and -'s of first past the post don't add up any worse than those of other systems. In democracies they have to retain popular support or they get voted out of office and have some of thier work reversed. 

What I find in poor taste is equating anything that happens in Canada with a dictatorship. In a real dictatorship like Cuba the opposition is shot or imprisoned and all other politcal parties banned. We still have ballots that list more than one name.


----------



## ModlrMike (8 May 2012)

bridges said:
			
		

> But IMO, the media as a group is another part of our quasi-democratic system - a complement to HM Loyal Opposition, if you will.  If they're investigating things that the government (any government) is doing, which we wouldn't otherwise know about, I'd think that our society is well served by their presence-?



Except when they're hyper-partisan like the current crop of federally funded muckrakers.


----------



## The Bread Guy (8 May 2012)

bridges said:
			
		

> But IMO, the media as a group is another part of our quasi-democratic system - a complement to HM Loyal Opposition, if you will.  If they're investigating things that the government (any government) is doing, which we wouldn't otherwise know about, I'd think that our society is well served by their presence-?


Ah, but who do the media "work" for and accountable to?  The private sector media works for its owners/shareholders, so we know where the buck stops there (pun intended).  CBC is funded _by_ the state, but is _not_ a "state broadcaster" like Voice of America is.  Re:  accountability, care to ask how folks on this forum feel about how CBC's dealt with their complaints?

At least with the Official _elected_ Opposition, we get a chance to vote for/against them.  With the media, yes, we can choose, but when some only go for what's sexy/splashy, and some go against the government, no matter _who_ the government is, it takes a pretty discriminating media consumer to sort out what's what.


----------



## bridges (8 May 2012)

DBA said:
			
		

> What I find in poor taste is equating anything that happens in Canada with a dictatorship. In a real dictatorship like Cuba the opposition is shot or imprisoned and all other politcal parties banned. We still have ballots that list more than one name.



Agreed.  IMO, the fact that we're fortunate enough to have a comparatively good system is all the more reason to continue striving to improve it.


----------



## bridges (8 May 2012)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Ah, but who do the media "work" for and accountable to?  The private sector media works for its owners/shareholders, so we know where the buck stops there (pun intended).  CBC is funded _by_ the state, but is _not_ a "state broadcaster" like Voice of America is.  Re:  accountability, care to ask how folks on this forum feel about how CBC's dealt with their complaints?
> 
> At least with the Official _elected_ Opposition, we get a chance to vote for/against them.  With the media, yes, we can choose, but when some only go for what's sexy/splashy, and some go against the government, no matter _who_ the government is, it takes a pretty discriminating media consumer to sort out what's what.



If your argument is that the CBC shouldn't be critical of the government because the variety of approaches makes it too hard for non-discriminating media consumers to choose... I'd say not to worry - there will always be some who stick with their favourite no matter how many (or few) sources there are.  

As for complaints, mine to the CBC have been dealt with in about the same manner as my complaints to private broadcasters over the years:  usually no response, sometimes a form e-mail and occasionally an individual, thoughtful response.  

And as for bias, I also listen to NPR from northern NY, and I can tell you that they're pretty vigorous about investigating anything affecting people in the region, regardless of whether Democrats or Republicans are involved, or public or private interests.  For comparison's sake, their funding model is different - listeners and advertisers make up about 60%, and the rest is a combination of state-funded and internal revenue. 

If the NDP were to form the next government, I'd bet you - and I'd hope! - that the CBC would be just as pointed in their investigative journalism as they are now - to the extent allowed by diminished capacity due to cutbacks.  In the meantime, I'd be curious, if a national poll were taken, how many people appreciate the CBC holding the government accountable and how many would prefer they just lay off.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (8 May 2012)

bridges said:
			
		

> In the meantime, I'd be curious, if a national poll were taken, how many people appreciate the CBC holding the government accountable and how many would prefer they just lay off.



How about a third choice of just stop giving them taxpayer money and let them fend for themselves.

No matter how you feel about them, taxpayers shouldn't be paying a cent for Mother Corp.


----------



## Good2Golf (8 May 2012)

bridges said:
			
		

> ...In the meantime, I'd be curious, if a national poll were taken, how many people appreciate the CBC holding the government accountable and how many would prefer they just lay off.



That's begging the question - you imply that CBC activities "hold the government accountable."  The Auditor General and Parliamentary Budget Officer hold the Government to account - not the CBC, nor any other media organization.  Media informs and, as a private entity attempts to maximize profit, and as a public entity attempts to maxmimze its programming services within Federally-allocated resources.  

I'd wager that Canadians on average are just as disappointed with an organization whose President doesn't have an issue with spending $120 for a lunch to chat with his CRTC colleague, as they are with a Federal Minister who buys a $16 orange juice while travelling abroad.


Regards
G2G


----------



## Kirkhill (8 May 2012)

bridges said:
			
		

> If your argument is that the CBC shouldn't be critical of the government because the variety of approaches makes it too hard for non-discriminating media consumers to choose... I'd say not to worry - there will always be some who stick with their favourite no matter how many (or few) sources there are.
> 
> As for complaints, mine to the CBC have been dealt with in about the same manner as my complaints to private broadcasters over the years:  usually no response, sometimes a form e-mail and occasionally an individual, thoughtful response.
> 
> ...



The problem I have is that I believe you are right with regard to CBC and the NDP. 

But.

I believe that the CBC and most of the Bully Pulpit Press would be consistent in forever criticising the government of the day from the Left.  Beyond the occasional op-ed leavening from the Right I can't imagine the Fourth Estate ever permitting/adopting a position they perceive as "pro-business" or "socially conservative".


----------



## bridges (8 May 2012)

Maybe that's because, in theory at least, they have public welfare in mind - as opposed to profit.  I think that's what public broadcasting basically comes down to, in free societies - leaving aside the places where it's a propaganda arm of the state.  Just my  :2c:


----------



## Fishbone Jones (8 May 2012)

bridges said:
			
		

> Maybe that's because, in theory at least, they have public welfare in mind - as opposed to profit.  I think that's what public broadcasting basically comes down to, in free societies - leaving aside the places where it's a propaganda arm of the state.  Just my  :2c:



They don't have public welfare in mind, they are on 'public welfare' and no, they are nothing like Public Broadcasting.


----------



## Good2Golf (8 May 2012)

Public broadcasting / publically-funded, competitive market-based broadcasting.

In the eyes of many, as "public" as it gets in Canada is TVO.


----------



## Brad Sallows (8 May 2012)

We would be well-served if "any government" were investigated with equal rigour and enthusiasm, but I am unconvinced of the impartiality of the CBC.  I suppose they truly do serve what they believe to be the "public welfare", but I am equally unconvinced that they (or anyone else) has a monopoly of good judgement as to exactly what the "public welfare" is.

As I responded to a friend recently who was critical of his own profession, and wondering about its defensibility: "The ideal of objective professional journalism is worth defending and is defensible.  But just as the map is not the terrain, the ideal is not the institution we currently have."

You can be a professional journalist, or you can be a lickspittle fart-catcher.  You can not be both.


----------



## Rifleman62 (9 May 2012)

We will see what happens to the CBC when they lose Hockey Night in Canada. Watch CBC, using taxpayer dollars, get outbid by private corporations for the broadcasting rights for the 2012/13 season.

Another nail in the coffin.


----------



## Sythen (9 May 2012)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> You can be a professional journalist, or you can be a lickspittle fart-catcher.  You can not be both.



How many journalists would honestly believe that they are just a talking head spewing hot air? No one believes themselves incompetent. Ask any number journalists, and I bet the 100% consensus would read something like, 'I know there are those who give our profession a bad name, but there are us good ones trying to fix it.' Even Hitler believed what he was doing was good and right.


----------



## Good2Golf (9 May 2012)

Sythen said:
			
		

> How many journalists would honestly believe that they are just a talking head spewing hot air? No one believes themselves incompetent. Ask any number journalists, and I bet the 100% consensus would read something like, 'I know there are those who give our profession a bad name, but there are us good ones trying to fix it.' Even Hitler believed what he was doing was good and right.



 :tsktsk:

Godwin's Law is about to be invoked...


----------



## Sythen (9 May 2012)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> :tsktsk:
> 
> Godwin's Law is about to be invoked...



From the wikipedia:



> Precisely because such a comparison or reference may sometimes be appropriate, Godwin has argued that overuse of Nazi and Hitler comparisons should be avoided, because it robs the valid comparisons of their impact



Understanding fully that you probably meant it light heartedly, I felt it was appropriate here due to the fact that no one ever wakes up in the morning thinking, 'I am gonna commit some atrocities and generally be an evil person today!' There is always justification for anything someone does.. For instance, even with all the anti-military rhetoric that comes out of the CBC, do you believe they are trying to bring down soldiers, or trying to protect us 'less educated young boys who were fooled by those sly talking recruiters'?


----------



## Journeyman (9 May 2012)

...the thread _did_ make it to 33 pages before Godwin kicked-in. Not bad.


----------



## The Bread Guy (9 May 2012)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> I'd wager that Canadians on average are just as disappointed with an organization whose President doesn't have an issue with spending $120 for a lunch to chat with his CRTC colleague, as they are with a Federal Minister who buys a $16 orange juice while travelling abroad.


Assuming said Canadians have heard about the $120 lunch - I doubt it made "The National"


----------



## bridges (9 May 2012)

Well ... I don't know what CBC employees are thinking as they go about their jobs, and the $120 lunch sounds messed up - agreed.  

I do know that at least once a day I hear something on CBC Radio that's both important and unlikely to have been heard on a national commercial radio network, if we had one.  

Yesterday it was an in-depth interview with Mary Simon, the outgoing president of the national Inuit organization, who reflected on the evolution of Inuit communities and on the ways in which they'll likely interact with increasing traffic & development in the Arctic.  

Other days, I have a hankering for classic rock in the car.  Variety is important!


----------



## The Bread Guy (14 May 2012)

Micro case study....

The Canadian Press (CP) gets information from the Library of Parliament (no sign of sharing the raw data, though), and files this story, which is carried by a variety of media outlets:


> Stephen Harper's Conservatives have been accused of using their majority to hide too much House of Commons committee business behind closed doors.
> 
> But an analysis of Library of Parliament data for the last decade shows the championship title for secretive committee work actually belongs to former prime minister Paul Martin's Liberals.
> 
> ...



The CBC carried the CP story, but one of the CBC's Parliamentary Bureau staffers shares this as an .... _alternative_ way to look at things:


> .... The question, after all, isn't which governments have racked up the longest cumulative stretch of time sequestered away from the public.
> 
> It is whether the current trend of the government using its majority to shut down meetings over the objections of opposition members is a new development, or, as has been argued in corners sympathetic to the current government, whether the universe is simply reverting to a previous, more orderly state in which committee business was always done behind closed doors, with no complaint from the other side of the table.
> 
> ...


Discuss


----------



## DBA (15 May 2012)

Is the CBC so broke/poor they can't do actual research into the issue and instead resort to little more than superficial blog style hypothetical pondering?


----------



## ModlrMike (16 May 2012)

DBA said:
			
		

> Is the CBC so broke/poor they can't do actual research into the issue and instead resort to little more than superficial blog style hypothetical pondering?



Maybe a few less $120 sandwiches would fix that?


----------



## GAP (16 May 2012)

Insider Stursberg spills the beans on shenanigans at troubled CBC
 By Barbara Yaffe, Vancouver Sun May 15, 2012
Article Link

Canada's public broadcaster is kept in a perennial state of fiscal peril, reliant on policy making by a patronage clique of mostly uninformed board members.

That's the view of a former CBC insider Richard Stursberg who headed the network's English services from 2004 until his 2010 dismissal.

Stursberg, now a Toronto-based consultant, has written Tower of Babble, Sins, Secrets and Successes Inside the CBC, which spills beans on shenanigans he observed while in "the job I had loved more than any other in my life."

I developed my take on CBC back in the '80s, as Newfoundland and Labrador reporter for The National.

It was a complicated work-place because of a mandate requiring it, among many other things, to showcase Canadian content, to "reflect Canada and its regions to national and regional audiences."

Often, the Crown corporation felt more like a bureaucracy than a broadcast organization.

But I'm also a huge admirer. Given the complicated existence CBC leads, it is remark-able it has consistently delivered such quality fare even as it has had to deal with massive budgetary cuts meted out both by the Chretien government and now, the Harper team.

The book takes readers into the bowels of the $1.5-billion operation ($1 billion of which comes from Ottawa), revealing how the broadcast sausage is produced.

Stursberg's goal while at CBC was to push it to focus on winning audience share rather than broadcasting intellectual content aimed at elites. He believed content could be both Canadian and entertaining.

It was an uphill battle and he acknowledges being "insubordinate and arrogant." He says CBC bosses viewed him as too competitive and commercial.

Stursberg derisively depicts CBC's traditional audience - the highbrow ballet and opera lovers - as "the Constituency," and maintains it wasn't numerous enough to keep CBC competitive.

He claims credit for a "growth strategy" - aimed at popularizing CBC-TV with shows such as Battle of the Blades and Dragons' Den.

He also was behind an over-haul of a truculent, demoralized news department he calls "Fort News," which saw more business reporting and had The National's host Peter Mans-bridge abandon his chair and desk to deliver the news while standing.

Improved ratings by 2009-10 show Stursberg largely achieved what he set out to do, although that wasn't enough to endear him to his higher ups.

Now departed from Mother Corp., he blows a whistle on disproportionate funding for Radio Canada, the CBC's French-language service which, he writes, gobbles 40 per cent of funding to serve about a 25-per-cent share of Canada's population.

He predicts, "very stormy seas" for CBC which, he believes, soon won't be unable to afford to keep its most valuable property, Hockey Night in Canada.
More on link


----------



## a_majoor (3 Jul 2012)

Your tax dollars at work, yet again. If these characters are trying to say something about a competitor, then come out and say it in the open, not lurking behind an assumed identity. As usual, being outed only reduces your credibility even more:

https://bcblue.wordpress.com/2012/07/03/cbc-senior-editor-hiding-where-he-works-while-bashing-sun-news-on-line/



> CBC senior editor hiding where he works while bashing Sun News on-line
> July 3, 2012 — BC Blue
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## JorgSlice (2 Oct 2012)

I know this doesn't fall into "Political" bias too much, but I wasn't too keen on starting a new topic. Feel free to move it...

CBC and their slander strike again:
Reproduced under the Fair Dealings Provisions of the Canadian Copyright Act



> Dear CBC - Re: Gender Based Harassment Report
> Supt Ray Bernoties
> Officer in Charge
> BC RCMP - Operational Strategy Branch
> ...



You can view the CBC literary "_masterpiece_" here: Article Link


----------



## Journeyman (2 Oct 2012)

Sorry, there was a typo; I fixed it.


> It is extremely disappointing unsurprising  to see CBC’s Chief Political Correspondent, Terry Milewski, write such an inflammatory, inaccurate and sensationalized article about......


This is not a critique of Mr. Milewski; it simply comes back to scandal sells -- always. 

*Stop watching "investigative news (sic)" programs!* 
They will only cause more angst, heartache, and confusion than they'll _ever_ reduce through informing.


----------



## JorgSlice (3 Oct 2012)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Sorry, there was a typo; I fixed it.This is not a critique of Mr. Milewski; it simply comes back to scandal sells -- always.
> 
> *Stop watching "investigative news (sic)" programs!*
> They will only cause more angst, heartache, and confusion than they'll _ever_ reduce through informing.



I personally stay away from it, I had just noticed the Release from the BC RCMP. I'm not surprised at all either.

I stick to the New York Times crossword in newpapers... I don't have the time for all these childish antics anymore.


----------



## Journeyman (3 Oct 2012)

PrairieThunder said:
			
		

> I stick to the New York Times crossword in newpapers...


 :not-again:  They habitually misspell words like honour and humour -- both of which are important.


----------



## bridges (3 Oct 2012)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> *Stop watching "investigative news (sic)" programs!*
> They will only cause more angst, heartache, and confusion than they'll _ever_ reduce through informing.



...because that's a great way to stay informed?  I'd say, watch investigative news from multiple sources, and use your own critical analysis.  CBC should be included in the multiple sources - they do have some excellent reporters, as do several other news organizations.   :2c:


----------



## GAP (3 Oct 2012)

Milewski is not one of them. He has an agenda and it shows. Very unprofessional at best.


----------



## Journeyman (3 Oct 2012)

bridges said:
			
		

> ...because that's a great way to stay informed?  I'd say, watch investigative news from multiple sources, and use your own critical analysis.


The point of these "investigative reports" is to save the audience from having to do any analysis. Do these programs tend to present both sides of a topic and encourage thought, or is the focus overwhelmingly upon the bad news? Are innuendo and unsubstantiated hypotheses presented in with the same weight as corroborated facts?

I agree that watching _news_ from multiple sources, and using critical analysis is sound advice; "investigative news," however, is not remotely the same as "news."


----------



## Fishbone Jones (3 Oct 2012)

GAP said:
			
		

> Milewski is not one of them. He has an agenda and it shows. Very unprofessional at best.



Here, here


----------



## a_majoor (6 Oct 2012)

Quick; who is surprised to read about these events?:

http://bcblue.wordpress.com/2012/10/05/cbcs-new-by-line-all-justin-all-the-time/



> *CBC’s new by-line: “All Justin – all the time”*
> October 5, 2012 — BC Blue
> 
> It was bad enough when they extended their coverage to accommodate Liberal MP Justin Trudeau’s leadership announcement in Montreal but for the 4th straight day, the CBC has live-streamed his campaign event. (see here)
> ...


----------



## Journeyman (7 Oct 2012)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> CBC’s new by-line: “All Justin – all the time”...



I recall reading recently.....somewhere.....that Deborah Coyne is also a candidate for the Liberal Party Leadership. Where is her fawning 24/7 CBC coverage?


[I'm not going to say that her intellectual competence exceeds CBC's threshold.....I'm NOT!]


----------



## a_majoor (8 Oct 2012)

Martha Hall Findlay published a very interesting and informative study which cut the rug from under the idea of supply managment, and was only given a short piece in the National Post that I am aware of (Her still outstanding debts from the last Liberal leadership race should disqualify her anyway, but she is one of the few Liberals who have made any sort of policy position recently)

Marc Garneau boasts a very impressive resume, but has not pubished or spoken of any policy ideas that I am aware of, but would seem to have the organizational "chops" to select and pass good ideas through Caucus and do the heavy lifting needed to actually rebuild the LPC, even if he won't be able to taste the results of his hard work in 2022.

There was a discussion on another thread about Scott Brison; he was considered a highly influential member of the Conservative Caucus but crossed the floor to the LPC, could he be a contender?

I'm afraid my list is very short and probably incomplete, who else is out there as a reasonably plausible candidate?


----------



## Maxadia (12 Oct 2012)

Not the CBC, but it's funny how this one comment points to a slant against the military in this story:

http://www.vancouversun.com/life/Bullied+teen+Amanda+Todd+took+life+Coroners+Service+confirms/7381793/story.html



> But not all the chatter was positive. Mike Mace, *whose own Facebook page says he is a member of the Canadian Military*, faced a flurry of shaming comments after he posted a negative comment mocking her death.



Like that has anything to do with his comments.   :facepalm:  There was another thread on here recently, where some people were shocked by the comments of one young man's parents.  Well, this is the type of passive mentality that is out there...."he's in the military, so of COURSE he'd be expected to make comments like that."  :

Portrayl in the media affects how the public sees the organization and its members - true or not.


----------



## The Bread Guy (12 Oct 2012)

RDJP said:
			
		

> Portrayl in the media affects how the public sees the organization and its members - true or not.


Hence the nervousness caution seen in big organizations about folks using social media.


----------



## JorgSlice (12 Oct 2012)

RDJP said:
			
		

> Not the CBC, but it's funny how this one comment points to a slant against the military in this story:
> 
> http://www.vancouversun.com/life/Bullied+teen+Amanda+Todd+took+life+Coroners+Service+confirms/7381793/story.html
> 
> ...



While sad, yes, pointing out the fact that her actions that she committed to (AKA not a mistake) may have caused a trigger in some or all of the bullying instead of everyone painting her as an innocent child - is apparently now "mocking of her death"?  :

I don't condone bullying and I'm not saying she deserved it at all, and loss of life is always tragic, but people are too quick to assume that she's innocent and did nothing wrong, her actions were mistakes and she didn't have to take responsibility. Any mention of the fact that if she had put more thought process into committing to the actions she chose to commit she might still be here today, get's you insults of your very own. Bullies are bullies though and they still should not get off scott-free although if our "Justice system" is any indication... they'll probably get a slap on the wrist.

Something I heard/read today on this topic:



> I don't understand why the focus here is on the bullying and not on the parents, losing a child is a tragedy however how could her father "find her in a ditch" after she was assaulted and not conduct some parental follow through? It's not the responsibility of the teachers (who are too busy striking and not working to notice) or the government (too buy taxing) to address these issues it's the responsibility of the parent ... Seems like blaming others and passing off responsibility is endemic in our society nowadays.



Pretty sound if you ask me.


----------



## Maxadia (12 Oct 2012)

Nothing sounds without all the facts.  I haven't seen anything for or against whether the family tried to do any type of follow up or not.  Something failed in this case - whether it was the system or family, who knows.

You are correct though, that although harsh, pointing out the fact that her actions may have incensed the situation, hardly amounts to "mocking".


----------



## JorgSlice (12 Oct 2012)

RDJP said:
			
		

> Nothing sounds without all the facts.  I haven't seen anything for or against whether the family tried to do any type of follow up or not.  Something failed in this case - whether it was the system or family, who knows.
> 
> You are correct though, that although harsh, pointing out the fact that her actions may have incensed the situation, hardly amounts to "mocking".



True, the facts are important and necessary - but I sense it is speculation at the most. Anyway, no further derail.

Apologies


----------



## Sythen (26 Oct 2012)

http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/straighttalk/archives/2012/10/20121026-073229.html



> It’s time to have a real discussion about CBC.
> 
> Most discussions about the future of Canada’s state broadcaster turn quickly to emotional arguments about the role CBC has supposedly played in building this country.
> 
> ...



More on link.


----------



## Edward Campbell (30 Oct 2012)

Not CBC, but: even as people have died and are dying, in large numbers, in the Caribbean and USA as a result of _Super-storm Sandy_ and notwithstanding one sad, storm related death in Toronto, Canada is not suffering very much from this storm; but that doesn't stop Robert Fife of CTV News who complains that "Public Safety Vic Toews runs out back door, refusing to answer reporters questions about Canada's response to Sandy." Does it occur to him, I wonder, that Minister Toews might actually have _ministerial_ level work to do - receive briefings, approve extraordinary expenditures, etc - which just might be more pressing that answering inane questions from self-important journalists?

Fife is an ass.


----------



## Brad Sallows (30 Oct 2012)

He's just sticking to the Journalism 101 handout for political interviews.

Question template for "progressive" candidate: "Thank you for giving me the privilege of asking you a question, sir/ma'am.  My question is this: what would you like me to report?"

Question template for "conservative" candidate: "[Insert irrelevant tendentious preamble here].  So my question is this: when did you stop believing the age of consent should be lowered to 6?"


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (30 Oct 2012)

but what does Justin Trudeau think?


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (4 Nov 2012)

More reasons to disband this sinkhole of money.
http://www.torontosun.com/2012/11/02/ruining-the-good-doctors-name---from-cbc-exposed-by-brian-lilley


 Ruining the Good Doctor's Name - from CBC Exposed, by Brian Lilley 7 
How a respected cardiologist saw his life changed forever by a single episode of The Fifth Estate

 By Brian Lilley ,Parliamentary Bureau 
 Sunday, November 04, 2012 12:02 AM EDT 

see link above.


----------



## a_majoor (10 Nov 2012)

CBC craps on the CF for Remembrance day:

http://jr2020.blogspot.ca/2012/11/cbc-disrepecting-our-troops-again.html

Perhaps we need to recast the funding model to give the CBC a dollar per viewer. Since they have 7% of the viewing audience they should get along quite nicely....


----------



## The Bread Guy (12 Nov 2012)

Interesting .....



> On Remembrance Day, a war memorial in Toronto’s Coronation Park was vandalized scrawled with the words “CANADA WILL BURN PRAISE ALLAH”.
> 
> The news hit the pages of the Toronto Sun, CTV, Global and the Toronto Star with the Toronto Police investigating the incident as a “hate crime”.
> 
> ...


----------



## ModlrMike (12 Nov 2012)

CBC also asked the question today "What kind of military can Canada afford?" I suggest you wrap your head with a tensor bandage to minimize the inevitable explosion when you read the comments.


----------



## JorgSlice (12 Nov 2012)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> CBC also asked the question today "What kind of military can Canada afford?" I suggest you wrap your head with a tensor bandage to minimize the inevitable explosion when you read the comments.



 :facepalm:

It's painful. I sometimes hope that many of those people are joking, but then I realize their knowledge is so little that there's no way they can't be serious. I hadn't realized people could be so... dumb  ???

As long as "those types" remain a very small and indistinguishable minority, I'll be k:


----------



## George Wallace (12 Nov 2012)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> CBC also asked the question today "What kind of military can Canada afford?" I suggest you wrap your head with a tensor bandage to minimize the inevitable explosion when you read the comments.


\

Love it.  This one was a gooder:

Dors_Venabili    2012/11/12  at 7:38 AM 



> Let's be honest. If Canada were truly attacked, it would be by a force the size of Russia, China, or the USA. Regardless of the invader, we haven't the military budget, technology or population to ward off an invasion from any of those contenders for more than 48-72 hours.
> 
> There's a reason why countries like Switzerland don't bother with a military - because it's a futile waste of time and resources.



I  see that she doesn't know that the whole country is an army of conscripts.  They all have issue weapons in their homes.........Oh my GOD!  In their homes......not on the streets..... In their homes.......in their town.....( Guess there are no Liberals there.)  The whole nation.  OH!  MY GOD!  

And their murder rate is much lower than ours .......  :-\

I wonder if Rick Mercer gets some of his stuff from those posts?


----------



## The Bread Guy (12 Nov 2012)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> .... Dors_Venabili    2012/11/12  at 7:38 AM
> 
> 
> > Let's be honest. If Canada were truly attacked, it would be by a force the size of Russia, China, or the USA. Regardless of the invader, we haven't the military budget, technology or population to ward off an invasion from any of those contenders for more than 48-72 hours.
> ...


You HAVE to wonder how such people would comment on stories suggesting military personnel here would be allowed to bring their weapons home.  Love it - thanks for sharing!


----------



## Edward Campbell (12 Nov 2012)

The very reason we still have a CBC is that the _average Canadian_ is clueless. That's why the the tiny handful of good excellent programmes on CBC (Ideas, Tapestry, Writers and Company) have so few listeners.


----------



## jollyjacktar (12 Nov 2012)

I do listen to selected programs on Radio 1 too.  The remainder of CBC is a waste of rations.


----------



## Sythen (12 Nov 2012)

http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/video/featured/prime-time/867432237001/cbcs-soldier-smear-campaign/1964304929001

Ezra Levant talks about the smear campaign, and CBC's anti-military narrative. Good little rant, and he reads Tommy by Rudyard Kipling in the end.


----------



## Scott (12 Nov 2012)

In a complete twist: a former PPCLI corporal bites the CBC on the subject of the spoof video.

I didn't say names so all kittens are safe.


----------



## jollyjacktar (12 Nov 2012)

Scott said:
			
		

> In a complete twist: a former PPCLI corporal bites the CBC on the subject of the spoof video.
> 
> I didn't say names so all kittens are safe.


Yeah, I read that too, however, I don't concur with it being offensive but otherwise it's spot on.


----------



## ModlrMike (12 Nov 2012)

Their own tame talking heads failed to rise to provocation and they still think there's a story here?  :facepalm: :facepalm:


----------



## The Bread Guy (13 Nov 2012)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Interesting .....
> 
> 
> > On Remembrance Day, a war memorial in Toronto’s Coronation Park was vandalized scrawled with the words “CANADA WILL BURN PRAISE ALLAH”.
> ...


An update:  CBC.ca did, indeed, carry the story.


----------



## jollyjacktar (13 Nov 2012)

But buried amongst the Toronto news.


----------



## Journeyman (14 Nov 2012)

CBC's latest.......   :not-again:



> *Memo warned Toews of risks in dropping gun show rules*
> Elimination of long-gun registry raises concern over gun show sales
> By David McKie, CBC News
> 
> ...



And that was simply the 'factual' part of the "news" story. I can only assume that the nuance of staff advising those who are charged with making decisions are not bound to slavishly adhere to those recommendations.....that whole "Memo warned Toews of risks.." Yep, it did; he weighed that and decided otherwise. Too complex for CBC's situated estimate.

Nope, this diatribe on the 'risks' of eliminating the long-gun registry is tied to someone selling switch-blade knives at one gun show.   :facepalm:


*Bottom line: Is CBC hiring Grade 9 students as "investigative journalists"??*


----------



## Edward Campbell (14 Nov 2012)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> ...
> *Bottom line: Is CBC hiring Grade 9 students as "investigative journalists"??*




No, but a BA in Journalism appears to require about the same amount of actual intellectual capacity and effort as was demonstrated by the guys with (sometimes suspect) Grade VIII certificates from places like Kapuskasing, ON and Blacks Harbour, NB with whom I soldiered in 1960. But (most of) those guys, unlike most 21st century journalists,* demonstrated the virtues of integrity, hard work, perseverance and actual moral courage. 

Plus, see my mini-rant, here; Journalists are NOT professionals - not unless we now count used car and insurance salespersons as professionals. They are _tools_ in the marketing business - most akin to the _Watkins Man_ - a peddler - who used to visit us, on the farm, back in the 1940s; he sold patent medicines (I guess the liniment was OK for normal farm use on sore backs and shoulders) and spread gossip: *exactly what journalists do, today*.


-----
*Of course there are exceptions ~ and I don't mind, publicly, excepting e.g. David Akin and Mercedes Stephenson (neither of whom work for the CBC) from that broad generalization.


----------



## The Bread Guy (14 Nov 2012)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> And that was simply the 'factual' part of the "news" story. I can only assume that the nuance of staff advising those who are charged with making decisions are not bound to slavishly adhere to those recommendations.....that whole "Memo warned Toews of risks.." Yep, it did; he weighed that and decided otherwise. Too complex for CBC's situated estimate.
> 
> Nope, this diatribe on the 'risks' of eliminating the long-gun registry is tied to someone selling switch-blade knives at one gun show.   :facepalm:
> 
> ...


Hey, at least on this story, you can read the briefing notes in question to compare/contrast - but I wonder how many folks will/do?


----------



## Brad Sallows (14 Nov 2012)

SPJ (US) Code of Ethics.

Read and laugh.  On the list of adjectives describing people who cleave to the "Journolist" philosophy, "professional" is absent.

Sometimes a "journalist" is just a paid concern troll.


----------



## The Bread Guy (14 Nov 2012)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> SPJ (US) Code of Ethics.
> 
> Read and laugh.  On the list of adjectives describing people who cleave to the "Journolist" philosophy, "professional" is absent.
> 
> Sometimes a "journalist" is just a paid concern troll.


Some Canadian parallels - the Canadian Association of Journalists' "Ethics Guidelines", CBC's "Journalistic Standards and Practices", and the Canadian Press' "Our people & editorial values".


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (14 Nov 2012)

I love this part in McKie's article:

"The briefing note points out that such incidents are rare, but said, "this could change in the future and, should a significant incident occur, there could be criticism that the regulations were not implemented."

If you read the actual Note as disclosed in Milnews' post, you see that this "concern" comes immediately after the Notes' portion that reads: "From a risk management perspective, gun shows are not a significant public safety concern."

So the Minister is being advised that this is no big deal, but CBC makes a plateful of it because it relates to OMG: Guns!!!!!

Now, it gets even more hilarious from a reporting point of vue: If Mr. McKie took the time to read and fully comprehend the briefing note (hey, I'm French Canadian and I understand it better than he), he would have noted that the proposed new regulation's purpose is to actually simplify and reduce  the safety/security burden currently imposed on gun show participating businesses that currently automatically apply as a result of the lack of regulation specific to such shows.


----------



## a_majoor (14 Nov 2012)

Anyone care to forward these comments to the CBC to see what sort of nonsensical response comes from their lips? (Better yet, anyone care to forward this to Ezra Levant for an entertaining rant on Sun TV?) 

op:


----------



## GAP (17 Nov 2012)

Harper: No tears for CBC revenue problems
By Daniel Proussalidis, Parliamentary Bureau
Article Link

OTTAWA - The CBC shouldn't come crying to him for more money, Prime Minister Stephen Harper says, even if a continuing NHL lockout reduces ad revenue from Saturday night hockey broadcasts.

"CBC has its funding voted annually by Parliament," Harper said Friday from Quebec City. "That is the amount we are giving it for the year."

The last federal budget trimmed taxpayer support for the state broadcaster by about $55 million and ended a special $60-million subsidy for Canadian content production.

That means the state broadcaster will have to make do with about $1 billion from taxpayers, plus almost $370 million in ad revenue.

The loss of NHL hockey for a whole season could knock $130 million off CBC English TV ad revenue, according to the Friends of Canadian Broadcasting — a figure the CBC wouldn't confirm.

New Democrats are now circulating a petition calling on the Conservatives to reverse CBC budget cuts and provide "adequate and stable funding." 
More on link


----------



## jollyjacktar (17 Nov 2012)

I guess the CBC will soon be wishing they hadn't been breaking the Governments balls at every turn.  Reap what you sow.   :crybaby:


----------



## jpjohnsn (17 Nov 2012)

Judging by the layoffs and losses at Sun media, it's the Sun and the CBC both falling off a cliff and the Sun gleefully crowing that the Mother Corp is going to hit the ground first.


----------



## Brad Sallows (17 Nov 2012)

"adequate and stable funding." 

which is code for:

"as much money as they spend."


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (17 Nov 2012)

I am just curious on two things:

1. What would the storyline run by the CBC be if the Canadian Forces had of run out of money and asked the government for a $130 million odd "top up"? The fact that hockey wasn't played this year shouldn't have been a huge shock... prior to 1 April it was widely assumed that a lock out would occur.  The CBC should have done an analysis, identified this as a potential problem area, and planned accordingly.

2. The NDP, who presumably will be criticizing the conservatives for not balancing the budget this year, are then asking for MORE money for the CBC.  Presumably they would be willing to lose the $130 million from some other program so as not to add to the deficit.  What program would they see losing this money?

On a side note- if they want to save $130 million they could start by firing Terry Milewski and George Stromboulopolis


----------



## ModlrMike (17 Nov 2012)

Journalistic safeguards at CBC News
 By Jennifer McGuire, CBC News
Posted: Nov 16, 2012 2:04 PM ET 


Exerpt

We have clear and recognized processes to flag any issues before they flare up.

If a story might harm the reputation of an individual or institution, result in possible legal action, require the use of techniques such as anonymous sources, or hurt the CBC's journalistic credibility, it is always referred up to me or to the other senior journalists that make up my management team.

/Exerpt

LINK


Does the term "rose coloured glasses" ring a bell?


----------



## Old and Tired (22 Nov 2012)

Granted that CNews isn't the most unbiased reporting and that is poll is very, VERY, unscientific/subjective I still find it reassuring: Screen cap attached because I alreadyvoted and it wouldn't let me see the results a second time.


----------



## ModlrMike (23 Nov 2012)

If they're hard up for money maybe they could cut back on the car allowances?


----------



## Wolseleydog (16 Mar 2013)

Cranky rant of the morning (whilst I sip my coffee): CBC, you are using the US abbreviation for the rank of captain. (Actually, more specifically, they are using the US Army abbreviations.) 
See: http://www.cbc.ca/manitoba/features/ptsd/

This is, I suppose, a small quibble, but is it not one of the classic tenets of journalism to "at least get their names right"? Also, this is not some small town rag, but the organization that purports to be our national representatives on the journalism front. And it is not just getting one point of detail wrong in a rushed story about some breaking incident -- it is a major project, studying the CF as an issue.

Does this not reflect poorly on the Mother Corp's current standards? Or am I indeed being too petty here?


----------



## MikeL (16 Mar 2013)

Doesn't bother me if that is the only thing wrong.  The only issue I had with that page was the story of the Super Ninja Bombardier they used to have,  but it appears to be gone now.


----------



## Edward Campbell (16 Mar 2013)

Wolseleydog said:
			
		

> Cranky rant of the morning (whilst I sip my coffee): CBC, you are using the US abbreviation for the rank of captain. (Actually, more specifically, they are using the US Army abbreviations.)
> See: http://www.cbc.ca/manitoba/features/ptsd/
> 
> This is, I suppose, a small quibble, but is it not one of the classic tenets of journalism to "at least get their names right"? Also, this is not some small town rag, but the organization that purports to be our national representatives on the journalism front. And it is not just getting one point of detail wrong in a rushed story about some breaking incident -- it is a major project, studying the CF as an issue.
> ...




We have a whole, named, topic about the CBC here, which deals with more than just the Corporation's _political_ biases.

But you are right: journalists, not just CBC journalists, are, broadly and generally, lazy, careless and poorly informed. There are, of course, exceptions ~ fortunately there are dozens, even hundreds of them ~ but they are too few to change a system that, again generally, supports stenographers, not reporters.

Getting a rank wrong is just a symptom of a greater _disease_. Journalists are craftsmen, rather like plumbers, who aspire to be professionals, like lawyers, but whose _craft_ has none of the prerequisites to be a professions (a unique body of knowledge which is passed down by other professionals; standards of ethics; a 'closed' disciplinary system; etc). They end up being self important posers who reject criticism even when their blunders are clear.

(By the way, the military is far more a _profession_ than is journalism even though the military is more of a _vocation_ à la the priesthood.)


----------



## The Bread Guy (16 Mar 2013)

Wolseleydog said:
			
		

> Cranky rant of the morning (whilst I sip my coffee): CBC, you are using the US abbreviation for the rank of captain. (Actually, more specifically, they are using the US Army abbreviations.)
> See: http://www.cbc.ca/manitoba/features/ptsd/
> 
> This is, I suppose, a small quibble, but is it not one of the classic tenets of journalism to "at least get their names right"? Also, this is not some small town rag, but the organization that purports to be our national representatives on the journalism front. And it is not just getting one point of detail wrong in a rushed story about some breaking incident -- it is a major project, studying the CF as an issue.
> ...


You're not being too petty.

You're certainly not alone in wondering about how some journalists and some outlets do their job.  I'm not inclined to be as harsh as E.R. in assessing reporters _as a group_  , given my own history with some, but there are enough such glitches to make one wonder.

Also, it's not just some _journalists_ reluctant to admit mistakes - their bosses & the outlets they work for are reluctant to issue corrections, too.

There are several official online references (one of which is not working) they could have consulted:
http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/acf-apfc/insig/index-eng.asp
http://www.familyforce.ca/sites/NMFC/EN/Documents/CF-101%20for%20Civilians%20EN.pdf
Also, The Canadian Press Stylebook gives similar guidance on military rank abbreviations.

All that said, there is merit to this point, too:


			
				-Skeletor- said:
			
		

> Doesn't bother me if that is the only thing wrong ....


At least they DID give some serious resources to a story worth devoting serious resources to.

Don't be shy about using the CBC's feedback form:
http://www.cbc.ca/contact/
I've passed along the concern - let's see how they handle it.


----------



## a_majoor (16 Mar 2013)

Not just the CBC. The local rag here (The London Free Press) always fails to use the definitive article when referring to The Royal Canadian Regiment (it is "the" in virtually every article I have ever seen).

Since this has been repeatedly pointed out, it is rudeness more than ignorance. I can imagine the prima donnas  at the CBC also shrugging off critiques like that due to their innate "superiority".


----------



## Alex10370 (16 Mar 2013)

wow, I didnt know that CFB Gagetown was in PEI?

"Richardson is one of the new kids on the block. He signed up in 2003, fresh out of high school, and immediately embraced military life, getting a post-secondary education and going on to receive combat training in Gagetown, PEI"
(found under CAPT Richardsons article)


----------



## George Wallace (16 Mar 2013)

Alex10370 said:
			
		

> wow, I didnt know that CFB Gagetown was in PEI?
> 
> "Richardson is one of the new kids on the block. He signed up in 2003, fresh out of high school, and immediately embraced military life, getting a post-secondary education and going on to receive combat training in Gagetown, PEI"
> (found under CAPT Richardsons article)




Crap!  The Island will sink under all the weight.


----------



## The Bread Guy (16 Mar 2013)

Alex10370 said:
			
		

> wow, I didnt know that CFB Gagetown was in PEI?
> 
> "Richardson is one of the new kids on the block. He signed up in 2003, fresh out of high school, and immediately embraced military life, getting a post-secondary education and going on to receive combat training in Gagetown, PEI"
> (found under CAPT Richardsons article)


OK, so much for my "glass is half-full".....  :facepalm:


----------



## Alex10370 (16 Mar 2013)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Crap!  The Island will sink under all the weight.



anic:

start the evacuations!!


----------



## Nfld Sapper (16 Mar 2013)

:waiting:

Really.......


----------



## OldSolduer (16 Mar 2013)

All I know is that the CBC is in love with the Maple Leafs. The Leafs Los the game in a shoot out, but to CBC it was a win in that the Leafs got a point.


----------



## GnyHwy (17 Mar 2013)

Somebody should tell them, that the team they lost to, was one of the teams they will probably be fighting for a playoff spot.


----------



## PuckChaser (17 Mar 2013)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> All I know is that the CBC is in love with the Maple Leafs. The Leafs Los the game in a shoot out, but to CBC it was a win in that the Leafs got a point.



It was a win that they got a point, in the short season every point counts. The 1 point for the tie means they aren't dropping to 9th. Lets not forget the main station hockey night in Canada is on is CBC Toronto, its a bigger market to play to.


----------



## The Bread Guy (17 Mar 2013)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> We have a whole, named, topic about the CBC here, which deals with more than just the Corporation's _political_ biases ....


Standby for merge ....

*Milnet.ca Staff*


----------



## R.C. (17 Mar 2013)

The CBC's Toronto bias (when it comes to hockey at least) is so thoroughly complete that Bob Cole still calls Maple Leaf games...from Montreal...when the Leafs aren't even on the ice.


----------



## jpjohnsn (17 Mar 2013)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> You're not being too petty.
> 
> There are several official online references (one of which is not working) they could have consulted:
> http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/acf-apfc/insig/index-eng.asp
> ...


The problem is that not everyone is on board with the CP style book.  I went to Civvy U in the mid-80s at Carleton which had, at that time, the "best" journalism program in the country.  I was in engineering but two of my suitemates were in journalism.  At that time, they were all taught using an American style guide (NY Times, IIRC) hence American spelling and abbreviations.  One of the reasons they told me was that so papers could take stories straight off the wire without having to edit them for such a trivial thing as spelling (!)  It's only been about the last decade that you have been able to see colour and neighbour and not color and neighbor in OUR newspapers.

The other issue is that the default dictionaries in just about every word processing application (and e-mail, etc, etc) is American.  Even if you (or your IT section) set the options for Canadian spelling (if it even has that option and you don't have to resort to UK english), I find it often reverts randomly back to US defaults.  It will correct (or autocorrect) to wrong spellings and abbreviations.  Editors of every newspaper and most TV networks are more interested in pushing their political agendas than actually editing stories and no-one is taught how to spell anymore.


----------



## The Bread Guy (17 Mar 2013)

jpjohnsn said:
			
		

> The problem is that not everyone is on board with the CP style book.  I went to Civvy U in the mid-80s at Carleton which had, at that time, the "best" journalism program in the country.  I was in engineering but two of my suitemates were in journalism.  At that time, they were all taught using an American style guide (NY Times, IIRC) hence American spelling and abbreviations.  One of the reasons they told me was that so papers could take stories straight off the wire without having to edit them for such a trivial thing as spelling (!)  It's only been about the last decade that you have been able to see colour and neighbour and not color and neighbor in OUR newspapers.


Good point - I remember when I was still in the biz eons ago that for a while, even Canadian Press adopted American spelling for a short bit.  

That said, CBC certainly has access to a range of public sources of Canadian useage.



			
				jpjohnsn said:
			
		

> The other issue is that the default dictionaries in just about every word processing application (and e-mail, etc, etc) is American.  Even if you (or your IT section) set the options for Canadian spelling (if it even has that option and you don't have to resort to UK english), I find it often reverts randomly back to US defaults.  It will correct (or autocorrect) to wrong spellings and abbreviations.  Editors of every newspaper and most TV networks are more interested in pushing their political agendas than actually editing stories and no-one is taught how to spell anymore.


True about the built-in dictionaries, but that's why "editors" have that name - if "the spell check didn't catch it" doesn't cut it elsewhere, one would hope that this is still the case in journalism, including the CBC.  Maybe I dare to dream ....


----------



## The_Falcon (17 Mar 2013)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> It was a win that they got a point, in the short season every point counts. The 1 point for the tie means they aren't dropping to 9th. Lets not forget the main station hockey night in Canada is on is CBC Toronto, its a bigger market to play to.



That may change, give that Rogers and Bell are now co-owners of the Leafs


----------



## PuckChaser (17 Mar 2013)

Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> That may change, give that Rogers and Bell are now co-owners of the Leafs



CBC makes their only good money on HNIC. If Toronto and Mtl are the biggest market, they will continue to play to that to get a ratings boost. Personally, I prefer the TSN coverage of NHL games. They just seem far more into the game and easier to listen to.


----------



## Wolseleydog (19 Mar 2013)

UPDATE: The CBC has corrected it from "Cpt" to "Capt".

Interesting.  Good for them, I guess, but I still think it reflects upon their research to have gotten it wrong in the first place.


----------



## Edward Campbell (1 Apr 2013)

Not the CBC, _per se_, but one of its closest allies, the _Toronto Star_, gets a well deserved kick in its unethical ass in this column which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _National Post_:

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/04/01/kelly-mcparland-the-stars-war-on-rob-ford-is-a-deceitful-vendetta-based-on-journalistic-hypocrisy/


> The Star’s war on Rob Ford is a deceitful vendetta based on journalistic hypocrisy
> 
> Kelly McParland
> 
> ...




I hold no brief for (or against) Mayor Ford; I don't know much of anything about Toronto's politics or problems; Ford is _notorious_ but he appears to have some good or, at least, popular ideas, too.

What caught my eye was the comparison to Chief Teresa Spence, about whom we talked a lot a few weeks ago in these pages. Kelly McParland is spot on: Mayor Ford and Chief Spence receive(d) noticeably, markedly different levels of scrutiny by the media and it was not and is not "fair" or "unbiased."

*BUT*: I am not opposed to a biased media; in fact i doubt there is any such thing as an unbiased media outlet and if there were it would, almost certainly, go broke because it would be terminally boring. I just wish that TV and radio, especially the CBC, were as honest about it as is the _Toronto Star_ which makes no secret of its adherence to the Atkinson principles. Now, I would argue that the consistent bias which the _Star_ displays is out of step with the principles (although not with Atkinson) because on Individual and social justice, for example, the _Star_ hews to Atkinson's left wing views not to the reality that left wing parties in Canada, local, provincial and national are less that enthusiastic supporters of individual liberty. Still and all, the _Star_ has some values - even if it has trouble understand them. Too many (most) media outlets are either _unprincipled_ or confused about their own principles.


----------



## observor 69 (1 Apr 2013)

I found this article in the Star very interesting, and disappointingly possible.
"Why Rob Ford may easily win re-election as mayor"
http://www.thestar.com/opinion/commentary/2013/03/28/why_rob_ford_may_easily_win_reelection_as_mayor_hepburn.html


----------



## Fishbone Jones (1 Apr 2013)

Baden  Guy said:
			
		

> I found this article in the Star very interesting, and disappointingly possible.
> "Why Rob Ford may easily win re-election as mayor"
> http://www.thestar.com/opinion/commentary/2013/03/28/why_rob_ford_may_easily_win_reelection_as_mayor_hepburn.html



I found the article boring and favourably possible.

Toronto finally has an honest politician, with all his warts and foibles, who is actually reducing spending and cutting off the feed trough to all the tax sucking special interest groups.

Just like the majority of hard working, politically non specific Torontonians have asked for.

The left wing, special interest, nimby flakes, that try make Toronto into some sort of hippy Utopian playground will just have to suck back and reload till they can lie another perverse sacko into  office.

The Big Smoke is tired of namby pamby "Dad knows best" governments, that give hard tax dollars to special interests while ignoring hard working tax payers, and has elected a guy who has done what he said he'd do.

I'm sure there's a tourist type craft villiage you can move to, if you don't like who most of the voters picked.

Some little socialist island off the Vancouver Island area would probably fit.


----------



## The_Falcon (2 Apr 2013)

Thread derail (or may should be retitled Media Bias in general)

But why is the possibility of Ford's re-election a bad thing?  The Star and others like to bemoan his personal foibles and decisions, but like the Post mentioned that's all they have.  Aside from the whole subway/transit city thing, he has actually been doing what he campaigned on, and the city hasn't completing imploded inspite of his victories. And this latest scandal  :  If he was as drunk as they say he was, why are their no pictures/video of it?  At an event with 800 people with the CDS and MDN present and the Mayor, I am sure at least 1 or 2 people would have had some kind of device capable of recording images on it on their person.  People seem to relish catching the Mayor being unmayor like and then running off to the media, so if he was really THAT drunk, it strikes me as more than a little odd, the only thing to substantiate the star's claims are numerous "anonymous" sources. 

As far as the article comparing him to Klein and Barry, more obfuscation since, while the article briefly touches on Klein's penchant for hooch, they completely skip the part were he actually was pretty successful and did most of what he said (hmm sounds familiar, seems progressives actually prefer being lied to).  The comparison to Barry however is a little much, since that guys actions delved into the completely illegal (I seem to recall a famous undercover sting video showing him buying crack/cocaine).  Comparing TWO guys who while they were boorish and unrefined for the "elites" that run papers like the star were/are generally decent and did their jobs, to a person who delves in actual criminal behaviour is a bit much, and I find it more than a little offensive.


----------



## jpjohnsn (2 Apr 2013)

Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> Thread derail (or may should be retitled Media Bias in general)
> 
> it strikes me as more than a little odd, the only thing to substantiate the star's claims are numerous "anonymous" sources.


The Star's entire story pivots on a leaked Ainslie's e-mail (an ally of Mayor Ford) and not exclusively or even chiefly from "anonymous" sources.  I don't see the content of the email as being any sort of proof of anything but, clearly, he was concerned about something.  His continuing silence does nothing but stoke the fires of rumour and innuendo and hurt both his and the Mayor's reputation.  His only comment so far seems to be anger that the email was leaked, confirming he actually wrote it.


----------



## The_Falcon (2 Apr 2013)

jpjohnsn said:
			
		

> The Star's entire story pivots on a leaked Ainslie's e-mail (an ally of Mayor Ford) and not exclusively or even chiefly from "anonymous" sources.  I don't see the content of the email as being any sort of proof of anything but, clearly, he was concerned about something.  His continuing silence does nothing but stoke the fires of rumour and innuendo and hurt both his and the Mayor's reputation.  His only comment so far seems to be anger that the email was leaked, confirming he actually wrote it.



The Ainslie email came out after the fact, the initial story was various anonymous sources said the event organizers asked the mayor to leave.  When those organizers went to the media and said no we didn't, THEN the star pulled out Ainslie email.


----------



## mariomike (2 Apr 2013)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I hold no brief for (or against) Mayor Ford; I don't know much of anything about Toronto's politics or problems; Ford is _notorious_ but he appears to have some good or, at least, popular ideas, too.



Although retired from the City, I liked his campaign promises.

"And if they're going to make a bit more money for doing it – I have never had a person come up and say, ‘Rob, I object to paying paramedics, firefighters or police more money.’ This is where the money should be spent, and I have no problem paying our officers, or our firefighters or our paramedics good money to do a job."

Councillor Rob Ford, CP24 mayoral debate. October 2010.


----------



## a_majoor (29 Apr 2013)

Looks like the Mothercorp has their heads so far up the Young Dauphin's a** that "longstanding policy" becomes irrelevant:

http://thealbertaardvark.blogspot.ca/2013/04/cbc-when-is-long-standing-policy-not.html



> *When is a "long standing policy" at the CBC not really a policy at all? When it involves Justin Trudeau.*
> So CBC ran Justin Trudeau's latest ad during the broadcast of Hockey Night in Canada on Saturday night.
> 
> Nothing wrong with that, right?
> ...



The CBC is really a parody of a network these days.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (29 Apr 2013)

: The government really has to stop funding these guys with tax payer coin. The CBC is nothing but a bunch of overpaid elitist prigs.


----------



## Edward Campbell (29 Apr 2013)

recceguy said:
			
		

> : The government really has to stop funding these guys with tax payer coin. The CBC is nothing but a bunch of overpaid elitist prigs.




The government can start by stripping the CRTC of its authority to regulate cable services.

There is a need to regulate the radio frequency spectrum (for telecom and over the air broadcasting) because spectrum is a finite _natural resource_ (and part of a nation's sovereign patrimony) which needs to be managed for the common good. Industry Canada does a good enough job at the technical aspects of spectrum management but it is ill-equipped (and reluctant) to try to assign broadcast licenses to individual applicants (although it does so to e.g. mobile telecom providers without undue difficulty). So there is a legitimate role for an agency there - _refereeing_ when there are more applicants than channels. But landline (copper, cable and fibre) is neither scarce or a "natural resource" and the market, itself, is well equipped to manage itself. Cable companies: Bell, Rogers, Telus, Vidéotron, etc can and do compete in an open market and they, not the CRTC are best equipped to sell customers what they want at a fair price. Cabinet can mandate e.g. carriage of some French services on the lowest price tier in predominantly English areas and vice versa but there is no need for a "mandatory carriage" scheme: if I want a channel I pay for it, if I don't then (except for a small handful of, say, French channels) I don't pay. Competition will force Bell and Rogers to compete with Shaw and Cogeco in offering lower priced, unrstricted access to the services Canadians want. If Canadians don't want to watch e.g. _OmniTV_ then it will not be forced on them; ditto SunTV and the CBC.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (29 Apr 2013)

I agree Edward, you want to watch them, you pay for them. My taxes shouldn't be funding them as an unfair advantage over private broadcasters, that stand on their own two feet.


----------



## Edward Campbell (29 Apr 2013)

recceguy said:
			
		

> I agree Edward, you want to watch them, you pay for them. My taxes shouldn't be funding them as an unfair advantage over private broadcasters, that stand on their own two feet.




You also support a whole host of private broadcasters you don't watch and, therefore, don't want to subsidize. The CRTC "_supports_ Canadian culture" by requiring cable companies to charge you (mandatory carriage) for both public and private services you would rather neither watch nor subsidize.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (29 Apr 2013)

Actually, I have a digital antennae and get about 25 channels I don't pay for. I don't subscribe to any TV service.


----------



## a_majoor (29 Apr 2013)

The dirty secret is that it is technically possible and quite easy to give every customer "a la carte" service on Cable; pick and choose the chanels you want.

In real terms, the window may have closed; services like Netflix, Roku and Apple TV are making the idea of cable and broadast obsolete; the only sticking point currently is the ability of existing natworks to carry the bandwidth to the "last mile". Google is already offering to challenge carriers by rolling out its own fiber networks (in Kansas, the mere threat of Google entering the market caused the existing carriers to boost their throughput), and I have posted a range of technical solutions that can work on existing networks to increase bandwidth (technically, to use existing bandwidth far more effectively) in the "Recent warfare Technologies" thread.

The problem is not technical, it is political, and until *we* have the ability to escape the lutches of the CRTC and its crony capitalist clients on a large scale, they will continue to gouge Canadians and subject us to unwanted and unwatched channels.


----------



## The_Falcon (29 Apr 2013)

I was going to I read an article somewhere (maybe G&M) talking about how more and more people particularly gen Y are eschewing traditional cable, and going the Internet On-Demand route.  And at least in the major urban areas fiber is becoming more readily available, and many new home/condo construction projects include fiber. 

When I got back from TF 1-10 I didn't even buy a TV, I watched my movies/tv online on my computer, or went to the theatre.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (29 Apr 2013)

Take a look at cracked Apple 2 boxes with XBMC http://osxdaily.com/2013/02/24/jailbreak-apple-tv-5-2-install-xbmc/  and Raspberry Pi http://wiki.xbmc.org/?title=Raspberry_Pi/FAQ running XBMC.

Watch first run movies while they're still in the theater


----------



## Kat Stevens (30 Apr 2013)

being 100 km from the nearest urban area, I'm a slave to the Bell dish.  their clever ploy is to make you buy bundles full of useless shit, most of it in languages I can't speak, in order to get 3 or 4 decent ones, my bill is horrendous.  Ditto for internet, an antenna screwed to my wall, and service dependent on wind direction, snow accumulation, and power supply to the nearest tower.  It makes netflix or any of that too unreliable to bother with.  Plus usage is crazy spendy if I exceed my limit, and Canadian netflix being 1-2 years behind the network feeds.


----------



## GAP (30 Apr 2013)

Agency withdraws casting call for CBC show that specified ‘any race except Caucasian’
Adrian Humphreys | 13/04/29
http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/04/29/cbc-no-caucasian/

A casting call to hire a new CBC host that specifically said white people need not apply has been withdrawn, with the casting agent offering apologies for the mistake.

The original ad for the host of a children’s show, posted on the casting agency’s website under a CBC logo and on Craigslist, said: “Please only submit [an audition tape] if you match the following criteria: Male between the ages of 23-35 years; Any race except Caucasian.”

A new version of the ad removes the race reference, but maintains the sex and age restrictions and that applicants “must be able to carry a tune,” “ability to dance or move well is a bonus,” and should be “not afraid to show a silly side,” among others.

The revised casting call was issued and the Craigslist ad deleted Monday after critics on Twitter started questioning the restriction.
more on link


----------



## The_Falcon (30 Apr 2013)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> being 100 km from the nearest urban are, I'm a slave to the Bell dish.  their clever ploy is to make you buy bundles full of useless crap, most of it in languages I can't speak, in order to get 3 or 4 decent ones, my bill is horrendous.  Ditto for internet, an antenna screwed to my wall, and service dependent on wind direction, snow accumulation, power supply to the nearest tower.  It makes netflix or any of that too unreliable to bother with.  Plus usage is crazy spendy if I exceed my limit, and Canadian netflix being 1-2 years behind the network feeds.



There are ways to access the US Netflix, however you need to sort out you connectivity issues first.


----------



## Scott (30 Apr 2013)

Goddamnit, I bought the 3rd gen of AppleTV and am hooped for having it jailbroken.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (30 Apr 2013)

Scott said:
			
		

> Goddamnit, I bought the 3rd gen of AppleTV and am hooped for having it jailbroken.



Yup. Find someone with a 2 and trade them.


----------



## Scott (30 Apr 2013)

Hey, I found a use for the CBC - playoffs start tonight.

And they didn't discipline Grapes for his latest outburst (with which I almost completely agree)


----------



## Kat Stevens (30 Apr 2013)

Scott said:
			
		

> Hey, I found a use for the CBC - playoffs start tonight.
> 
> And they didn't discipline Grapes for his latest outburst (with which I almost completely agree)



Playoffs?  Oh, right, that thing the NHL does every year to prolong the season and squeeze more cash out of the sheeple.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (30 Apr 2013)

Locker rooms have changed since his day. That said (and I don't know if they do this already) the should have one place for interviews that is more in the public.


----------



## my72jeep (1 May 2013)

:nod:





			
				Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> Playoffs?  Oh, right, that thing the NHL does every year to prolong the season and squeeze more cash out of the sheeple.


----------



## PuckChaser (1 May 2013)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> Playoffs?  Oh, right, that thing the NHL does every year to prolong the season and squeeze more cash out of the sheeple.



No different than the NFL, MLB, NBA...


----------



## The_Falcon (1 May 2013)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> No different than the NFL, MLB, NBA...



Well it is a bit weird watching a WINTER sport, whilst outside on patio in shorts and a tshirt in June, especially when the final teams are sometimes from locales that never see snow.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (1 May 2013)

Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> Well it is a bit weird watching a WINTER sport, whilst outside on patio in shorts and a tshirt in June, especially when the final teams are sometimes from locales that never see snow.



As oppossed to watching the Superbowl at the end of winter?


----------



## Kat Stevens (1 May 2013)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> As oppossed to watching the Superbowl at the end of winter?



Your winter ended on 3 Feb?  Mine's still going on...

And my point was that two groups of millionaires sat opposite each other for over half the regular season bitching over who was screwing who hardest, when the only one who was ever going to get screwed was the fans.  I would have loved to see the season played in empty arenas, but hockey fans just rolled over, spread their cheeks and not only took it, but thanked them for it.  Athletes striking and owners locking them out is ridiculous.


----------



## my72jeep (1 May 2013)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> Your winter ended on 3 Feb?  Mine's still going on...
> 
> And my point was that two groups of millionaires sat opposite each other for over half the regular season bitching over who was screwing who hardest, when the only one who was ever going to get screwed was the fans.  I would have loved to see the season played in empty arenas, but hockey fans just rolled over, spread their cheeks and not only took it, but thanked them for it.  Athletes striking and owners locking them out is ridiculous.


 :nod:
This I agree with. the bigest smucks in the whole Hockey fiasco are the fans who willing take it.


----------



## The_Falcon (1 May 2013)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> As oppossed to watching the Superbowl at the end of winter?



Nothing weird about that since, that's been going on for decades.  Until Bettman started expanding into the Southern US, in the 90s, the NHL season wrapped up in late winter/early spring, not late spring/early summer.


----------



## my72jeep (1 May 2013)

Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> There are ways to access the US Netflix, however you need to sort out you connectivity issues first.


Tell me how, oh great one


----------



## Canadian.Trucker (1 May 2013)

my72jeep said:
			
		

> Tell me how, oh great one


I R not the great one, but if you watch netflix through a Wii or Xbox then type into google us netflix on (insert your media device) and you can find out how to do it.  Basically you get a DNS proxy server and in your settings switch from automatic to manual input, put in the primary and secondary dns IP and you should be good.  Specifically on the Wii if it asks for an update don't do it because it will reset the settings you just change.  Voila, you should enjoy US netflix.  Another way to go about it is to purchase a US IP address through the unblockus website, but it costs money (not much mind you, but still some).

Personally I have found I like the Canadian Netflix better now as their movie selection has greatly improved.  US netflix is definitely better for tv shows though.


----------



## eurowing (2 May 2013)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> I would have loved to see the season played in empty arenas, but hockey fans just rolled over, spread their cheeks and not only took it, but thanked them for it.  Athletes striking and owners locking them out is ridiculous.



 :goodpost: :goodpost:


----------



## Edward Campbell (2 May 2013)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, is an interesting (and biased) point of view:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/the-cbc-is-in-crisis-canadians-deserve-to-know-why/article11676193/#dashboard/follows/


> The CBC is in crisis. Canadians deserve to know why
> 
> WADE ROWLAND
> Special to The Globe and Mail
> ...




Wade Rowland is not a neutral observer. He loves the CBC, at least he loves a CBC which is a well funded, well managed Canadian version of the BBC. Many Canadians would be willing to pay, even pay more, for such a public broadcaster but my sense is that this Conservative government is happy enough to let, even encourage, the CBC to self-destruct. I don't expect this government to, suddenly, privatize the CBC but I do expect them to preside over its dismemberment and eventual, ignoble demise.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (2 May 2013)

Let them fade into nothing. Their relevance has faded and I'd rather have tax dollars be going elsewhere. Sink or swim CBC it's on you now!


----------



## observor 69 (2 May 2013)

I have noticed the CBC looking like the BBC, a good thing, but the programming obviously is based on different criteria. As John Doyle discusses in this article on Kirstine Stewart’s departure the organization is plagued with many handicaps that are a challenge for the most motivated manager.


----------



## Kirkhill (2 May 2013)

Hey all you nay-sayers.

CBC's James Cudmore agrees with me on the Shipbuilding strategy generally and the AOPS in particular.   Congratulations CBC.  You are brilliantly informed and surpassing fair.....  ;D ;D ;D

Until tomorrow.   :nod:


----------



## OldSolduer (2 May 2013)

They still suck at a lot of other "broadcasting".


----------



## PuckChaser (2 May 2013)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Congratulations CBC.  You are brilliantly informed and surpassing fair.....  ;D ;D ;D



Broken clock is right twice a day.


----------



## a_majoor (3 May 2013)

Eliminating public funding for the CBC is not "just" sour grapes, there is a pretty compelling question in this age of high government spending  and debt as to "why" we need institutions like the CBC at all?

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/05/02/tasha-k-2/



> *Tasha Kheiriddin: A case for smaller government*
> 
> Tasha Kheiriddin | 13/05/02 | Last Updated: 13/05/01 4:28 PM ET
> More from Tasha Kheiriddin
> ...


----------



## PPCLI Guy (3 May 2013)

In fairness, they got this right:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/story/2013/04/29/edmonton-military-promethean-ram.html


----------



## Dirt Digger (3 May 2013)

The one thing I can say in support of the CBC?  At least they've maintained their web presence as a free service.  

I'm sure that everyone knows that the Globe & Mail went behind a paywall last year, and seemingly on May 1st, the National Post set up a paywall for "foreign" readers...5 free article per month (I'm a deemed resident posted to the US).     Pretty soon, the CBC is probably going to be the only Canadian news source not charging for access...but then, they take their pound of flesh up front out of the Canadian taxpayer.   

It sure would be great if i could get CBC broadcasting down here without jumping through hoops.  For all of their failures, I'm not looking forward to NBC's coverage of the upcoming Winter Olympics.


----------



## The_Falcon (3 May 2013)

Dirt Digger said:
			
		

> The one thing I can say in support of the CBC?  At least they've maintained their web presence as a free service.
> 
> I'm sure that everyone knows that the Globe & Mail went behind a paywall last year, and seemingly on May 1st, the National Post set up a paywall for "foreign" readers...5 free article per month (I'm a deemed resident posted to the US).     Pretty soon, the CBC is probably going to be the only Canadian news source not charging for access...but then, they take their pound of flesh up front out of the Canadian taxpayer.
> 
> It sure would be great if i could get CBC broadcasting down here without jumping through hoops.  For all of their failures, I'm not looking forward to NBC's coverage of the upcoming Winter Olympics.



The foreign thing is based on IP address.  Sun Media also has a paywall.  As much as it sucks, I do agree with it.  After all they are business, and business need to make money in order to continue providing their services.  If you go to the store or whatever, generally you have to pay to read the newspaper, this is no different.  If the CBC did set up a paywall then people should have a legit beef, since you know they get tax money to operate and provide their services, on top of what they collect from advertisers.


----------



## Jarnhamar (3 May 2013)

is this an accurate story by CBC?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2013/05/02/pol-milewski-shipbuilding-design-mystery.html


----------



## Edward Campbell (3 May 2013)

ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> is this an accurate story by CBC?
> 
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2013/05/02/pol-milewski-shipbuilding-design-mystery.html




See the discussions in our own AOPS thread; the CBC seems to be repeating what some of our members are saying.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (3 May 2013)

ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> is this an accurate story by CBC?
> 
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2013/05/02/pol-milewski-shipbuilding-design-mystery.html



I hate that guy as much as the other one we won't talk about here. Even his pompous accent drives me nuts.



			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> See the discussions in our own AOPS thread; the CBC seems to be repeating what some of our members are saying.



Edward,

They are here, on a regular basis, mining the site for information and what they percieve as dirt and disgruntlement amongst the military.

Opinions and posts like the ones people are making (the porn issue) in the WATC sex thread is gold for them. Don't think they won't use it to paint us all as troglodytes if they have a slow news day.

We're a public forum and the press can't be trusted to give a fair unbiased story. Blood and sex sells.


----------



## Jarnhamar (3 May 2013)

I didn't see that thread, thank you.

Recceguy, I'll send him a nastygram. I'm getting good at them, well I see a lot of them anyways...


----------



## Fishbone Jones (3 May 2013)

ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> I didn't see that thread, thank you.
> 
> Recceguy, I'll send him a nastygram. I'm getting good at them, well I see a lot of them anyways...



Thanks for the thought OZ, but I'm pretty good slicing and dicing with the written word myself, if it becomes an issue that needs attention


----------



## a_majoor (9 May 2013)

If this gains traction in the United States, then there will be some corresponding pressures on Canada to harmonize with the States as well. This is a political issue, the technology for "a la carte" has existed for decades, and soon the issue may be mooted by broadband streaming services that allow you to watch whatever you want on any divice.

Watch for the political fireworks on both sides of the border:

http://www.businessinsider.com/john-mccain-wants-to-blow-up-the-cable-industry-as-we-currently-know-it-2013-5



> *John McCain Wants To Blow Up The Cable Industry As We Currently Know It*
> Jay Yarow	 | May 9, 2013, 11:16 AM | 3,391 | 21
> 
> John McCain is going to release a bill that would dismantle cable as it's currently constructed, Brenden Sasso at The Hill reports.
> ...


----------



## Remius (9 May 2013)

Not sure that's even necessary.  Like you said, with emerging new ways to stream online, Netflix and YouTube's plan for pay by channel, the Cable companies are feeling the pinch.  they might actually have no choice but to get innovative.  Eventually the market will naturally force them to change.


----------



## Edward Campbell (9 May 2013)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> If this gains traction in the United States, then there will be some corresponding pressures on Canada to harmonize with the States as well. This is a political issue, the technology for "a la carte" has existed for decades, and soon the issue may be mooted by broadband streaming services that allow you to watch whatever you want on any divice.
> 
> Watch for the political fireworks on both sides of the border:
> 
> http://www.businessinsider.com/john-mccain-wants-to-blow-up-the-cable-industry-as-we-currently-know-it-2013-5




It, à la carte programming, is the most desirable outcome, but it is not clear - not to me anyway - that it will result in lower costs to consumers. The cable and satellite companies will still need to recoup the costs of providing their services - selling useless "bundles" is just a PR trick to make you believe you're getting something for nothing.

It will be harder to do here in Canada - we have both the official language and Canadian culture "police" forces patrolling our telecom/broadcasting industry making sure that we get what is "good for us."

But, even if the average consumer ends up with ⅓ the channels for the same price (s)he will, at least, will get and pay for only the channels (s)he chooses, not what the social-engineers and busybodies decide is "right."


----------



## Kirkhill (9 May 2013)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> But, even if the average consumer ends up with ⅓ the channels for the same price (s)he will, at least, will get and pay for only the channels (s)he chooses, not what the social-engineers and busybodies decide is "right."



Next thing you know people will be deciding which church they want to attend.... heresy.


----------



## Kat Stevens (9 May 2013)

Crantor said:
			
		

> Not sure that's even necessary.  Like you said, with emerging new ways to stream online, Netflix and YouTube's plan for pay by channel, the Cable companies are feeling the pinch.  they might actually have no choice but to get innovative.  Eventually the market will naturally force them to change.




All great systems if you live in urban areas where reliable steady internet service is a given.  Plenty of us live rurally, and the inconvenience of being here costs.  As I said, I'm a slave to two dishes bolted to my house, and would love to pick and choose my channels.


----------



## a_majoor (12 May 2013)

More of your tax dollars at work:

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Politics/2013/05/10/20812511.html



> *How the CBC wastes your money documenting Quebecor*
> By Brian Lilley, Parliamentary Bureau
> 
> Richard Nixon kept an enemies list and so does CBC. No surprise that I'm on CBC's list but I was surprised to finally get my hands on the "Quebecor Briefing Book."
> ...


----------



## Jed (22 May 2013)

I have noted recently that a considerable amount of media attention in the US is focusing on some pretty major issues on the culpability of the Obama administration in regards to the IRS targeting conservative organizations, covering up the abandonment of personnel in the Benghazi affair, inappropriately obtaining press information, manipulating the press, and all of this occurring prior to last year's Presidential election, etc.

This smacks of a sitting government totally drunk on power and starting to effect the lives of the US people and allies.

(Personally, this greatly concerns me far more than, say, Mayor Rob Ford refusing to answer questions about an alleged video.)

Why is the MSM concentrating on the Duffy affair and a Rob Ford video to a nauseating degree and totally ignoring what seems to be a seismic shift in how the neighbours to the south feel about their POTUS? 

Where is the sense of balance and priority?


----------



## GAP (22 May 2013)

> Where is the sense of balance and priority?



You are not a Liberal are you.... if you were you would understand where the sense of balance and the top priority belong......


----------



## The_Falcon (22 May 2013)

Jed said:
			
		

> I have noted recently that a considerable amount of media attention in the US is focusing on some pretty major issues on the culpability of the Obama administration in regards to the IRS targeting conservative organizations, covering up the abandonment of personnel in the Benghazi affair, inappropriately obtaining press information, manipulating the press, and all of this occurring prior to last year's Presidential election, etc.
> 
> This smacks of a sitting government totally drunk on power and starting to effect the lives of the US people and allies.
> 
> ...



Because Duff/Ford etc are all about gotchya politics, and feeding the infotainment "news" cycle.  What's happening in the states reOTUS is some pretty serious stuff, that requires serious thought and discussion and being able to truly evaluate the big picture consequences of these incidents, which mainstream media has all but proven they are completely incapable of doing.


----------



## Jed (22 May 2013)

GAP said:
			
		

> You are not a Liberal are you.... if you were you would understand where the sense of balance and the top priority belong......



Well... I am not currently a Liberal. I may be one at some future time or in some future universe if the stars align.  ;D

I am probably a libertarian at gut level.


----------



## The Bread Guy (22 May 2013)

Baden  Guy said:
			
		

> I have noticed the CBC looking like the BBC ....


.... but it doesn't yet _sound_ like the BBC (at least radio, anyway) - here's some podcasts to compare to CBC's offerings.


----------



## Jed (23 May 2013)

I should know better. The definition of insanity "doing something over and over and expecting a different outcome"

I watched the 10 o'clock CBC news again. I used to respect Peter Mansbridge for his usually unbiased approach but that was long ago and I now believe he has sold his soul to the devil.

The approach tonight was especially deceptive as CBC did the usual drag in the Duffy affair off the top and then spend an inordinate amount of time slicing and dicing the Prime Minister's response, mixing this in with the other major events of the day. Then they teased us with a nod regarding some emerging scandals happening down south, just a little matter with a difference of opinion with regards to the IRS and, oh yah, interfering with the press. The details were not covered though.

What was covered was a comparison on how the soulless and non communicative Stephen Harper coldly dealt with his scandal compared with how the illustrious Barack Obama magnificently and openly communicated with the American people.

What a blatant farce. Not a fair report or assessment of the gross and obvious abuse of power of the Obama administration being daily brought to light by many authorities in the US.

Please, for the love of God, cut the public funding umbilical cord to this useless organization and let it survive on its own.


----------



## Edward Campbell (23 May 2013)

The CBC will "not go gentle into that good night," according to this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Huffington Post_:

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/05/23/cbc-hubert-lacroix-bill-c-60_n_3322436.html?ref=topbar#slide=2401128


> CBC Vs. Harper Government: Hubert Lacroix Warns Of Legal Showdown With Tories
> 
> CP  |  By Julian Beltrame, The Canadian Press
> 
> ...




The CBC lacks the foundation - financial and artistic - to be either a BBC or NPR/PBS. It is, in other words, a second rate, at best, public broadcasting product. It cannot survive in a free market and it is not clear how long governments will agree to prop it up. For the moment the political cost of shitcaning the whole sad, mess is higher than Prime Minister Harper is willing to pay ... for the moment.


----------



## The Bread Guy (23 May 2013)

Touching on trusting media....


> .... According to the referenced survey only 8% of Canadians trust bloggers.
> 
> Which begs the obvious question, indeed so obvious that the professional pollster quoted above didn’t bother asking it: Have 8% of Canadians even read a blog?
> 
> ...


godscopybook.blogs.com


----------



## Edward Campbell (25 May 2013)

Not about CBC, _per se_, but Christie Blatchford suggests that Canadian journalism has taken an ireverable step in the wrong direction in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _National Post_:

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/05/24/christie-blatchford-3/


> Canadian journalists have moved the goalposts in pursuit of alleged Rob Ford crack scandal
> 
> Christie Blatchford
> 
> ...




There are two troubling aspects to the _Star's_ story:

     First, and least troubling to me, is the overtly partisan, political _tone_ to the coverage - but, as I often say, I expect media bias, indeed I welcome it; and

     Second, and this really does bother me, is the move away from "news and information" and towards _"infotainment"_.

Sadly, I think Christie Blatchford is correct and journalism, in general, has "moved the goalposts" ... in the wrong direction.


----------



## ModlrMike (25 May 2013)

I too expect, and to some extent welcome media bias. What I can't accept is the sort of vendetta journalism the Star has perpetrated on Mr Ford, or the CBC has prosecuted against Mr Harper.


----------



## Edward Campbell (25 May 2013)

More about journalism, in general, in this "Letter *from* the Editor" which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/community/editors-letter/editors-letter-why-we-published-the-ford-family-story/article12152740/#dashboard/follows/


> Editor’s letter: Why we published the Ford family story
> 
> JOHN STACKHOUSE
> The Globe and Mail
> ...




I think we need to remember that the "news" is a business and some observers - including the _Globe and Mail's_ own John Ibbitson in his recent book _The Big Shift_ - suggest that newspapers have to find new ways to attract and retain their audience. _Sensationalism_ has always been a staple of journalism - "if it bleeds it leads," and all that - and this story is sensational. Will it sell more "eyeballs," which is what advertisers buy? Will it stop the decline in subscribers? Oh, and as a very secondary tertiary aside, is it true?


----------



## GAP (25 May 2013)

I can only just shake my head at the extent to which the media and "Toronto" left devour anything and everything "Ford".


----------



## mariomike (25 May 2013)

I served under nine Toronto Mayors and four Metro Chairmen. 

Mayor Ford was elected after I retired, but he seems to be better known across Canada and on American comedy shows than all the others were put together.


----------



## George Wallace (25 May 2013)

mariomike said:
			
		

> I served under nine Toronto Mayors and four Metro Chairmen.
> 
> Mayor Ford was elected after I retired, but he seems to be better known across Canada and on American comedy shows than all the others were put together.



I don't know.  Mel Lastman was well known across the continent.


----------



## OldSolduer (25 May 2013)

GAP said:
			
		

> I can only just shake my head at the extent to which the media and "Toronto" left devour anything and everything "Ford".



He has been arrested, tried and convicted in the court of public opinion already. 

Where is the "innocent until proven guilty" slant everyone spouts when criminals are arrested and charged with a crime?

OHHHH sorry - "innocent until proven guilty" only applies to heinous criminals and terrorists.....sorry for trying to make sense. 

:sarcasm:


----------



## The_Falcon (25 May 2013)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> He has been arrested, tried and convicted in the court of public opinion already.



When it comes to Ford especially, it seems the left wing media and various others seem to the think the guy is Satan incarnate.  The guy isn't perfect, but he has never claimed he is or tried to be.  But the amount of people throwing stones in glasses houses is absolutely pathetic (latest example the councilor who claimed Ford was asked to leave a Military Ball, because he (Ford) was apparently drunk,  was caught at a RIDE check for having one to many and having his car towed and licence yanked).   

That said I have no time or patience for drug users.  But so far, there isn't any proof, and considering Ford doesn't take a salary and (until recently) volunteered his time coaching youth sports, I will take his word over drug dealers any day of the week.


----------



## Remius (25 May 2013)

As much as we'd like to blame the media and some sort of smear campaign against Ford a lot if not most is self inflicted. 

Ford is an embarrassment to the city.  

That being said, I think what the Toronto Star did would qualify as irresponsible journalism.  If there is a video find it buy it get it whatever.  Just saying you saw it isn't good enough.  The mayor is to blame for a lot but the Star is as much to blame for this goat rodeo as he is.


As well, their idiotic way of going about it may have cost them their story.  How hard would it be for Ford to just pay these guys what they wanted to go away and turn over the video to him if it does exist.  Not very bright.


----------



## Jed (25 May 2013)

Crantor said:
			
		

> As much as we'd like to blame the media and some sort of smear campaign against Ford a lot if not most is self inflicted.
> 
> Ford is an embarrassment to the city.
> 
> ...




The Toronto Star journalism has stooped to 'National Enquirer' level. Character assassination and witch hunt justice in full glory. What a rag of a paper. Good for putting in the bottom of bird cages.

I acknowledge that Mayor Ford is in a large part the author of his own works, but come on, a main stream newspaper is a pretty formidable enemy to go against.


----------



## mariomike (25 May 2013)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I don't know.  Mel Lastman was well known across the continent.



Come back, Mel. All is forgiven.


----------



## The Bread Guy (25 May 2013)

Crantor said:
			
		

> .... I think what the Toronto Star did would qualify as irresponsible journalism.  If there is a video find it buy it get it whatever.  Just saying you saw it isn't good enough ....


1)  The CBC is in an even worse position, saying "there are reports of such a video, but we haven't seen it and can't confirm its existence".
2)  Be careful what you wish for - how many people thinking this way would also be saying, "how low can you get, giving $100,000 to a drug dealer for a video" if the Star did buy it?  Then again, some media outlets appear happy to get police involved if it advances the story, while the Star may be trying to protect its source.


----------



## Edward Campbell (29 May 2013)

The CRTC may have given a future government, possibly (but not probably) even this one, the tool it needs to privatize the CBC. Allowing (limited) advertising on CBC radio removes a final, key distinction: the CBC now competes, directly, service by service, with private broadcasters and it, too, ought to be wholly private.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (29 May 2013)

Hmm,....a classic case of "careful what you wish for?".


----------



## ModlrMike (4 Jun 2013)

In what could be the first step in vindication for Mr Ford:

Gawker reports Rob Ford crack video may be 'gone'
CBC News
Posted: Jun 4, 2013 7:03 PM ET
Last Updated: Jun 4, 2013 7:20 PM ET 

Gawker, the U.S. gossip website that has led efforts to purchase and bring to light a purported video of Toronto Mayor Rob Ford smoking crack cocaine, now says their main contact fears the footage is "gone."

More at LINK

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

This may, and I hope does, turn out badly for the Star. Their libel exposure just became exponentially bigger.


----------



## GAP (4 Jun 2013)

hmmm.....convenient, no?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (4 Jun 2013)

A blind man could have seen this coming from a mile away.

The Toronto 'left' and 'elistias' will stop at nothing, including slander and libel to sully their arch enemy.

Death by a thousand (untruthful) cuts is the name of their game.

I can only hope he decides to run again and once more get elected by that majority that see him as someone that does what he says and refuses to kowtow to TO's fashionistas, a man that truly cares about TO and not the minority elitist vagabonds that try populate and influence it.


----------



## PuckChaser (4 Jun 2013)

The unfortunate part is the "crack" story will take forever to die, but the defamation and libel lawsuits will never see a front page.


----------



## Good2Golf (5 Jun 2013)

...on the Star, anyways...


----------



## The_Falcon (5 Jun 2013)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> The unfortunate part is the "crack" story will take forever to die, but the defamation and libel lawsuits will never see a front page.



Oh I bet The Sun can't wait for lawsuits to happen, will gleefully keep everyone appraised.  As for the story not "dying" it's really only The Star, G&M, CBC (and left wing councillors) who keep bringing it up and pushing the issue.  Sun Media and the National Post have pretty much figured out, Ford isn't changing his tune, and given how stubborn and persistent he often is, there is no sense in continually badgering him. 

As well, (if one believes polls), Sun Media conducted a few polls, and the finding are, about a 50/50 split between those who support him and those who say he should quite.   And a 50/50 split between those who think the video is real and those who don't.  

Even if the video is real and exists, this incident has shown 1) how low employees of media outlets (I can't bring myself to call them journalists or even reporters), will go for a story.  No corroboration, no authentication, no reliable trustworthy sources, just print whatever, sprinkle in the legal disclaimers in the hopes that that might stave off a lawsuit, and hope to god this video actually surfaces.  2)On the bright side, next person who says Sun Media are nothing but tabloid rags, and the Star and G&M are "higher quality", well this shatters that notion completely.  Hell I am pretty sure The National Enquirer does better fact checking and authentication than these clowns.


----------



## mariomike (5 Jun 2013)

I believe ( and I could be wrong ) that most Canadians do not allow themselves to get too worked up over Toronto's mayors ( Lastman, Miller and Ford ).

Because, love them or hate them, there is little point if you can't vote for or against them in elections.


----------



## The_Falcon (5 Jun 2013)

mariomike said:
			
		

> I believe ( and I could be wrong ) that most people do not allow themselves to get too worked up over other peoples politicians (except the US president).
> 
> Because, love them or hate them, there is little point if you can't vote for or against them in elections.



Fixed that for you.  But I do agree with your sentiment, if you were to talk to someone form Vancouver, they might bring up (this particular subject), but their interest is probably at the "meh" level.


----------



## mariomike (5 Jun 2013)

Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> But I do agree with your sentiment, if you were to talk to someone form Vancouver, they might bring up (this particular subject), but their interest is probably at the "meh" level.



The only mayor outside of TO that I can think of is Hazel McCallion. 

Probably only because she has been in office for so long.


----------



## GAP (5 Jun 2013)

mariomike said:
			
		

> The only mayor outside of TO that I can think of is Hazel McCallion.
> 
> Probably only because she has been in office for so long.



Well then being so Toronto centric, you missed out on Glen Murray, gay pride extraordinaire, Ralph Kline of Calgary fame...you know....the ex premier of Alberta.... et al..


----------



## Edward Campbell (8 Jun 2013)

Not about the CBC but, rather a small rant about "journalism," in general ...

I often agree with the _Good Grey Globe's_ Margaret Wente, but not this time. This time I take issue with one key premise in her column which is reproduced under the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/journalists-have-no-business-in-the-senate/article12426866/#dashboard/follows/


> Margaret Wente: Journalists have no business in the Senate
> 
> MARGARET WENTE
> The Globe and Mail
> ...




I have no issue with her comments about Senators Duffy and Wallin but I take serious issue with two sentences:

     *"Journalists are, after all, supposed to be in the business of holding governments to account and exposing public abuse."*

                            and

     *"As for the public, it’s no wonder so many of them doubt that journalists can be trusted to act impartially in the public interest.*

Rubbish; arrant nonsense; and tripe!!!

Journalism is not any sort of noble profession populated by high minded public servants. It is, at best, a _craft_ that requires some skills at clear, concise writing. Journalists have no duty - not assigned by anything like a recognized professional status and no implied - to hold governments to account or to expose public abuse. That they have, on many occasions, done so is a byproduct of their job which is, as I think Rupert Murdoch said, to fill the spaces between the ads.

Journalism can be compelling ~ think Edward R Murrow broadcasting from London in 1940. Journalism can be educational ~ think of H.L. Menkin reporting on the "Scopes Monkey Trial." But the best political, informative journalism is closer to "muck raking" - Upton Sinclair, was the best at it - than to public service. 

Now, don't get me wrong, I want Ottawa's muck raked ... ditto for Washington's and Beijing's ... but I don't want journalists to be held up as paragons of virtue; they aren't and I'm pretty sure Margaret Wente knows it when she says, _"It’s hard to embarrass the journalism profession ..."_ Damned right it is, journalism, rightly, is held in very low public esteem, along with politics.


----------



## Good2Golf (8 Jun 2013)

Hmmm..."profession"?  She flatters her kind a bit much, I think.  I didn't know that journalists are a self-regulating, licensing professional body?

Career? Sure.  Calling?  Okay, I'll by that.  Profession? Nope...unless, of course, they are a cross-trained doctor, dentist, lawyer, accountant, engineer, etc...

Regards
G2G


----------



## The Bread Guy (8 Jun 2013)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Hmmm..."profession"?  She flatters her kind a bit much, I think.  I didn't know that journalists are a *self-rugby laying* self-regulating, licensing professional body?


FTFY - gotta love that auto-complete, no?   ;D


----------



## Good2Golf (8 Jun 2013)

It comes up with the darnedest things...


----------



## Journeyman (9 Jun 2013)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> ......journalism, rightly, is held in very low public esteem....


   Unfortunately very true....except for those who believe it unquestioningly...."I heard it on Fox News, therefore..."  or the 'chemtrail' crowd  

Enjoy the MilPoints.


----------



## Edward Campbell (9 Jun 2013)

A few days ago the _Globe and Mail's_ Lawrence Martin, with whom I have disagreed over and over again on a wide range of issues, opined that "Canada’s political scholars fiddle while Rome burns ". I didn't post the article or even make a comment about it because I thought - still think - it was juvenile codswallop.

But Prof Philippe Lagassé, an associate professor of public and international affairs at the University of Ottawa and a member of the government's panel that is evaluating option for a new fighter aircraft does take issue with Martin in this column which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Ottawa Citizen_:

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/opinion/defence+academic+fiddling/8500960/story.html
My *emphasis* added


> In defence of academic ‘fiddling’
> *Scholars’ most valuable contributions to public debate are grounded in research, writes Philippe Lagassé.*
> 
> By Philippe Lagassé, Ottawa Citizen June 9, 2013
> ...




Suffice it to say that I agree with Prof Lagassé.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (9 Jun 2013)

I am convinced, that our MSM has been obsessed, with him, since Trudeau announced his candidacy. 

The polls, the news (for the most part) and the majority of journalists have used every opportunity to sway, impress, cajole and browbeat public opinion in favour of their anointed chosen one, Trudeau. 

Polls, as we know, will give whatever result we wish by framing questions and demographic. The pollsters hire out to the person that pays for those results. Having Trudeau ahead in the polls is not a matter of public feeling, but of pandering want from isolated, financial and special interests within the liberal party and their partisans. Ignore.

The news, especially those firms who hold a hatred for Harper will never allow a CPC feel good piece to run when there is any opportunity to trash Harper or his group. Ignore.

And journalists, ahh yes, what else can we say about the majority of these blood sucking bastards. Journalism isn't a profession, a calling, an elite educated dictum of ethics and honesty. It's, for the most part, a bunch of hacks, hammering away on a keyboard. Being paid to offer their personal opinion, which is no better than that of the average man on the street. Long gone are the days past when they provided information and fact, leaving us to draw our own opinions and conclusions. Their articles are now devoid of fact and draw upon the school of Dear Abby in their condescension when treating us as uneducated children that need to be told how to behave. Immensly ignore.


Now they all want to tell the lazy reader, the unthinking dolt, and the mindless lumps staring at the TV what is good for them and who to vote for.

All because, they have a personal dislike about one person over another.

I am an informed voter, and I refuse to let idiots, pollsters and journalists dictate who I want to see driving my government.


----------



## observor 69 (10 Jun 2013)

"I am an informed voter"  Which after you have eviscerated journalist in general makes me wonder, where do you get your informed opinion from?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (10 Jun 2013)

Baden  Guy said:
			
		

> "I am an informed voter"  Which after you have eviscerated journalist in general makes me wonder, where do you get your informed opinion from?



If you can't make an informed decision about a politician without listening to the bleating of the MSM, you're exactly the person they pander too, and the one they tell who to vote for.

There is plenty of opportunity today to watch the near daily workings of most any politician you're interested in without commentary from the peanut gallery.


----------



## Scott (10 Jun 2013)

Vote compass (which was one network) and polls that had Peter MacKay losing in a near landslide = enough reason to never listen to these sorts of things again.

Vote compass is exactly the sort of thing recceguy is speaking of. There's more, but the above two things were more than enough for me


----------



## jpjohnsn (10 Jun 2013)

The problem with terms like Mainstream Media is that it has come to mean any media that doesn't agree with you.  One of the more interesting neoligisms I saw last year was in the aftermath of the Daniel Dale/Rob Ford incident in the public land adjacent to Ford's house.  As the details came out, all the papers except The Sun came out in favour of Dale.  At that point I started seeing NSM (vs MSM) in The Sun's coverage - NSM meaning "Non-Sun Media"; that is to say, even the other conservative-leaning media outlets were suddenly part of the MSM.

And while I agree that the CBC can, at times, be guilty of bias, I don't think anyone can put a laser focus on them with any kind of straight face while ignoring the Sun Media conglomerate.  The Sun News Network's coverage of the Trudeau/Brazeau bout alone should be required watching in any journalism class on ethics and bias.


----------



## Journeyman (10 Jun 2013)

jpjohnsn said:
			
		

> The problem with terms like Mainstream Media is that it has come to mean any media that doesn't agree with you.


I've never seen the term used that way.  MSM, in my world, includes Sun, Star, Globe & Mail, CBC, CTV, etc...you know, the main stream -- the one's whose key focus is on filling space between the ads, rather than providing objective information to the best of their abilities.

But that's just me....    :dunno:


----------



## observor 69 (10 Jun 2013)

What if .... there wasn't enough news to fill the MSM evening news broadcast?  

I do find the PBS NEWSHOUR to be informative and unbiased.


----------



## Canadian.Trucker (10 Jun 2013)

In the end the way I view the media is that no matter what the source they are out to sell a product.  Whether it's through television, radio, newspapers etc they need to have people interested enough to tune in to what they're selling.  It's a business like any other, and like any other business they want to continue to have consumers return to them for the product they produce.


----------



## a_majoor (10 Jun 2013)

Generally speaking terms like MSM or Legacy Media are used to describe media that has traditional (broadcast) outlets and traditional revenue (advertizing) business models. In general, Canadian MSM or Legacy media also seem to feed on the same tropes as the so called "Laurentian elites" described in the "Big Shift"; since these tropes are questioned or rejected by many people living and working in "New Canada" they of course find the media to be biased and incorrect. The fact that most Canadian Media is based in the Toronto-Montreal corridor has a lot to do with this.

Not entirely sure the SUN media chain is representative of the New Canada though, I suspect the mantle will eventually fall on some future media chain based out of Calgary or Regina. Business models based on "narrowcasting" or personalized distribution (think of self assembling a "newspaper" based on RSS feeds from journalists you believe or outlets you trust, or "a la carte" assembly of shows you wish to watch on cable/internet) might be the wave of the future "New" media as well.


----------



## The_Falcon (10 Jun 2013)

jpjohnsn said:
			
		

> And while I agree that the CBC can, at times, be guilty of bias, I don't think anyone can put a laser focus on them with any kind of straight face while ignoring the Sun Media conglomerate.  The Sun News Network's coverage of the Trudeau/Brazeau bout alone should be required watching in any journalism class on ethics and bias.



The Sun, Star, National Post etc. can be as biased/unbiased as they want.  They are private enterprise.  The CBC ostensibly has no reason to "fill the ad space", since they get a generous payout from the taxpayer, which is what the majority of this tread has been about.


----------



## Edward Campbell (30 Jun 2013)

RoyalDrew said:
			
		

> Agreed, on one hand you have SUN News (AKA Fox News Canada) giving it to the government, then on the other hand you have the CBC and the Globe & Mail talking about how many unsecured guns.  Can we ever get a non-biased report in Canada.




Nope.

We are well past the age of _"reporting"_; now, in the 21st century we are victims consumers of the _*infotainment*_ business.

Journalism, at its best, was never biased. William Howard Russel, the _Times_ "man" in Crimea wrote very pointed accounts of the battles ~ anything but unbiased reporting; Edward R Murrow was not, in any sense, unbiased when he reported from London during the _Blitz_; ditto Christie Blatchford and Matthew Fisher. But Russell, Murrow, Blatchford and Fisher, with all their biases worn on their sleeves, still tried/try to _inform_; but what about, say, Sun News Network's Ezra Levant or the CBC's Evan Soloman? Is there any "news" in what they do, any "reporting," _per se_, any attempt to _inform_? Inflame, yes, inform ... not in my mind. They are, in fact, entertainers who work on _news_ networks.

There are still handfuls of real "reporters" on CBC, CTV, Global, etc and several more in the major print outlets. They all, like Russel and Murrow in the past, have biases but most try to report the facts and then comment upon them. We might, some of us, wish for the 'good old days' when editors tried to separate factual, albeit often slanted reporting and the out-and-out _opinion_ by having *Opinion* pages but now the line is badly blurred. Consider John Ibbitson, whose work I cite here very often: he's the _Good Grey Globe's_ "chief political writer" which is, I guess, a nice way of admitting that Ibbitson "reports" his opinions! But he isn't confined to editorial/opinion/commentary sections, his work appears as "news," and his work is highly opinionated. But Ibbitson and his opinionated stablemate Jeffrey Simpson are money makers for the _Globe and Mail_ because _Globe_ readers, like most Canadians want their information to be interesting, and "interesting" is a synonym for entertaining.

Fortunately we have a range of choices: I can offset _Sun News Network_ and the _CBC_ with e.g. the _Financial Times_ and the _Economist_. If I hear something outrageous on _Fox_ I can crosscheck it, almost instantaneously, in e.g. _Xinhau_ or the _Straits Times_.

By the way, in my opinion   , the _blogosphere_ is far, far more biased than is the worst of the mainstream media.


----------



## The_Falcon (1 Jul 2013)

While Ezra does deliberately try to inflame passions, he does actually talk about stuff that various other outlets refuse to.  Like during Occupy, when he went into the tent city, and found them all empty at night.  Or when mayor spence was having her little hissy fit, he actually drudged up the actual treaties, discussed the audit etc.  I don't consider him a journalist since he is a lawyer by training, but I like that he likes to bring forward stuff, that most others can't or won't say (probably why Sun Media hired him in the first place).


----------



## Edward Campbell (1 Jul 2013)

I know that people like Levant do _investigate_ but their reports are, in my opinion, intended to be inflammatory rather than informative. I see Ezra Levant and Warren Kinsella as two sides of the same coin: they are political/policy _entertainers_. Their job is to shout at one another across an electronic divide and, in the process, further confirm their supporters' views that the "other," and his supporters, are knuckle dragging social Neanderthals or loosey-goosey left wing fairies. It's probably good business ~ after all we see the same thing, "shouting heads," on TV networks all over the world. Is it because we value heat more than light? Yes. The "heat," the "sound and fury" is more fun, more entertaining, than simple "light" (information) and we are will to pay for entertainment while we are unwilling to pay for information.


----------



## a_majoor (1 Jul 2013)

The key difference is entertainers like Ezra, or Americans on FOX slip in information with their polemics (empty tents in tent city, the actual text of the treaties), so their fan base gets _heat_ and _light_.


----------



## Journeyman (1 Jul 2013)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> .....or Americans on FOX slip in information with their polemics....



I suspect that this is an example of:


			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> ....further confirm their supporters' views ......



Sorry, but if FOX has any reputation for slipping in information, I'm afraid it's either very _very_ nuanced, or simply overwhelmed by habitually catering the lowest common denominator.


----------



## mad dog 2020 (1 Jul 2013)

In Defense of Sun news, I like my fair share of news and various newspapers. I know I should read more in depth stuff. Starting to appreciate the Ottawa Citizen more with the military coverage.
I do find that the CBC and other news hours, skim off the topic and paint a 30 sec sound bite. 
For an issue like Occupy Toronto, MSM works on a 9-5 schedule and interviews the hired talking heads or some stooge trying to gain favour and show support to the blending heart issue de jour. like Sid Ryan  who must get his face on the news. 
I call these attention seeking, publicity driven political wanna-bes; the front rank or window dressing. Watch the music video of Dancing in the streets with David Bowie and Mick Jaggar and see them throw more elbows than Gordie Howe just for front and center position. 
Yet I see Ezra and company go after hours, (any real issue should be 24/7) and visit the second, third and bleachers to give us a full perspective of participants (yes, I know they could select the most embarrassing clowns).
But, I agree that during the Occupy Toronto, the half baked almost elderly hippies had a hard time identifying this cause this week and it was more so a great place to smoke a dube in public and not have to walk into an alley.
This week I saw Ezra at the West Hanover pumping station and talk to the immediate neighbours who had no complaints, concerns and with a vested interest. Yeh the CBC was there for the people of Caledonia. They did not want to get dragged into such a political time bomb.
So Sun is trying and touch many topics others skirt away from. I enjoy it and take what I need from it. At least a different perspective.


----------



## The_Falcon (1 Jul 2013)

Ezra, has also on more than one occasion (particular if you listen to AM 640 in Toronto which regular has him on the John Oakley show), straight up said he isn't a "journalist", nor does he pretend to be.  He is a lawyer (ergo he acts like a lawyer, a bombastic one but still), who just happens to have an audience, so he has no issue, critiquing finding flaws and poking holes in various stories. 

That's what really agitates people of the "Cause X" movement and various hangers-on, because he actually has training and experience in argument, and uses that to his advantage.  He doesn't interview people, so much as cross-examine them.


----------



## Edward Campbell (22 Jul 2013)

The _Good Grey Globe_ reports that the "CBC rejects ad critical of Harper government’s influence on CBC."

The ad, produced by the lobby group _Friends of Canadian Broadcasting_, is amusing, in a sophomoric sort of way, albeit a bit long winded ~ you can see it here.

The _Friends_ will capitalize of this to raise even more money.


----------



## Edward Campbell (27 Jul 2013)

Not about the CBC, not even about evident bias, but a reminder of the fact, and I suggest it is a fact, that the media is, by and large, entrenched in John Ibbitson's Laurentian Elites, is found in this article about Chrystia Freeland which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/journalist-chrystia-freeland-to-seek-liberal-nod-for-toronto-centre/article13470172/#dashboard/follows/


> Journalist Chrystia Freeland to seek Liberal nod for Toronto Centre
> 
> DANIEL LEBLANC
> OTTAWA — The Globe and Mail
> ...




Ms Freeland is would be a _star candidate_ if - and with M Trudeau's _imprimateur_ I guess "if" equals "when" - she wins the nomination.

Will her Alberta roots help the Liberals in that electoral wasteland? I doubt it. In fact, when redistribution occurs, I suspect she will be in too tough a fight with the NDP in new Toronto Centre riding to help out in the West.

What about her views? Pretty mainstream, I think ~ she's well aligned with e.g. Scott Brison: a _natural_ Manley Liberal who could, easily, be a Conservative of the Michael Wilson variety ... if that variety hadn't, virtually, abandoned the CPC.


----------



## Edward Campbell (31 Jul 2013)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Not about the CBC, not even about evident bias, but a reminder of the fact, and I suggest it is a fact, that the media is, by and large, entrenched in John Ibbitson's Laurentian Elites, is found in this article about Chrystia Freeland which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:
> 
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/journalist-chrystia-freeland-to-seek-liberal-nod-for-toronto-centre/article13470172/#dashboard/follows/
> 
> ...




It seems that no political _promise_ ought to go unbroken and so Justin Trudeau reaches into to his father's bag of tricks and effectively _parachutes_ Ms Freeland into Toronto Centre according to this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _National Post_:

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/07/30/john-ivison-justin-trudeau-parachutes-star-candidate-chrystia-freeland-into-safe-toronto-centre/


> Justin Trudeau parachutes ‘star’ candidate Chrystia Freeland into safe Toronto Centre
> 
> John Ivison, National Post
> 
> ...




Now, M. Trudeau's _team_ will, no doubt, argue that George Smitherman decided not to run f0r his own good reasons, not because Ms Freeland is being _parachuted_ into the riding, but if it "looks like a duck," etc ...

Ms Freeland must hope that Trudeau _fils_ is better at picking safe seats than was Trudeau _père_ - think "star candidates" Pierre Juneau (who was parachuted into _Hochelaga_, a "safe" Liberal seat, in 1975 - and lost the election), Bryce Mackasey (who was parachuted into _Ottawa Centre_, a "safe" Liberal seat, in 1978 - and lost the election) and Jim Coutts ( who was parachuted into _Spadina_, a "safe" Liberal seat, in 1981 - and lost the election). Sometimes the electors don't care all that much for the "para-candidate," _star_ or not.

By the way, the _Globe and Mail_ gave Ms Freeland a "free ride" in its pages (see link), allowing her a "guest" opinion piece before her formal nomination - despite a pledge (see my 2013-07-27 post) to "no longer employ Ms. Freeland as a columnist."

I think the phrase for which M. Trudeau and I are looking is _"plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose"_ ~ welcome to the 1990s (the Chrétien era), as Pierre Trudeau might have said.


----------



## Kirkhill (31 Jul 2013)

> I think the phrase for which M. Trudeau and I are looking is "plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose" ~ welcome to the 1990s (the Chrétien era), as Pierre Trudeau might have said.









What IS Scott Reid doing with himself these days?

Oh,Wait! He is Co-anchor at Globe Media's CTV News National Affairs programme.


----------



## Kirkhill (31 Jul 2013)

A note to the moderators:

The title of this thread has been sticking in my craw for a while.  The original thread was aimed at the CBC, but the trend had become a more generic drift towards media bias in general.   In the interests of accuracy, fairness and dodging accusations of slander (a predilection already discovered among some journalists) I propose this thread be retitled to Media Bias.

Just a thought.

Cheers.


----------



## Edward Campbell (31 Jul 2013)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> A note to the moderators:
> 
> The title of this thread has been sticking in my craw for a while.  The original thread was aimed at the CBC, but the trend had become a more generic drift towards media bias in general.   In the interests of accuracy, fairness and dodging accusations of slander (a predilection already discovered among some journalists) I propose this thread be retitled to Media Bias Follies ~ because it's not just _bias_ we are discussing.
> 
> ...


----------



## Kirkhill (31 Jul 2013)

Second the proposed amendment.


----------



## The Bread Guy (31 Jul 2013)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Second the proposed amendment.


Since it's not JUST CBC being assessed, this can be done.

*Milnet.ca Staff*


----------



## a_majoor (6 Sep 2013)

Notice the conspicuous silence from the opposition parties on Syria? Where _is_ the media these days?

http://bcblue.wordpress.com/2013/09/05/media-party-refuse-to-ask-trudeau-and-mulcair-to-comment-on-syria-bombing/



> *Media Party refuse to ask Trudeau and Mulcair to comment on Syria bombing*
> September 5, 2013 — BC Blue
> 
> A week later and the Media Party apparently still can’t find either the Liberal or NDP leader to get them on the record supporting or condemning US president Barack Obama on his plan to bomb Syria.
> ...


----------



## OldSolduer (6 Sep 2013)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Notice the conspicuous silence from the opposition parties on Syria? Where _is_ the media these days?
> 
> http://bcblue.wordpress.com/2013/09/05/media-party-refuse-to-ask-trudeau-and-mulcair-to-comment-on-syria-bombing/



I noticed that Mr Trudeau and Mr Mulcair are conspicuous by their absence.


----------



## The Bread Guy (6 Sep 2013)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> I noticed that Mr Trudeau and Mr Mulcair are conspicuous by their absence.


Trudeau, a bit....

_"Trudeau urges Parliament recall to debate Syria"_
_"Canada should accept more Syrian refugees: Justin Trudeau"_
Mulcair?  Not a single headline mention - not quite :crickets:, but close enough



			
				Thucydides said:
			
		

> Notice the conspicuous silence from the opposition parties on Syria? Where _is_ the media these days?


Chasing the decision makers mostly - for now, anyway.


----------



## pbi (16 Sep 2013)

jpjohnsn said:
			
		

> The problem with terms like Mainstream Media is that it has come to mean any media that doesn't agree with you.



Good observation. As I have commented elsewhere, all parties (Right or Left), groups, special interests, etc, etc. squeal endlessly that they are victims of a media that is controlled by their enemies. This suggests to me that the media are probably doing their job, more or less. It's true that the media is powerful and pervasive, and that it isn't always responsible. It's also true that various media outlets pander to various interests (some more than others).

But that said, if it were not for the much maligned media, who, exactly, would hold the government accountable for anything? Who would whistle blowers turn to? Who would ask the rude questions? Who would dig into the nasty embarrassing things that all (and I mean ALL) Canadian governing parties eventually engage in?

The government itself? No.

The Opposition: they can try, but if they are facing a steamroller majority government, especially one that doesn't really believe in sharing information, there's only so much they can do. And, anyway, without the media the efforts of the Opposition would go largely unnoticed. After all, how many Canadians actually read Hansard, or watch CPAC?

Without a free media, that can do or say pretty much what it wants (subject to reasonable libel laws), I don't see much hope for transparency.


----------



## a_majoor (21 Sep 2013)

Interesting catch by a blogger: your tax dollars at work with the CBC:

http://bcblue.wordpress.com/2013/09/21/questions-to-cbcs-peter-mansbridge-about-his-role-in-parks-canada-scandal/



> *Questions to CBC’s Peter Mansbridge about his role in Parks Canada scandal*
> September 21, 2013 — BC Blue
> 
> Being CBC’s top journalist as anchor of The National, it’s imperative for Peter Mansbridge to divulge what he knew about the deal (see here) between Parks Canada and the CBC to run the story on the Franklin Exhibition:
> ...



With some other costs then at least $100,000 from the Parks Canada budget for all this (if the various ships were already there for training or operations, then those costs are already "sunk" and should not count). Since Parks Canada is a government department, why do they need to pay anything at all to the CBC for coverage (indeed, news organizations have budgets to pay for reporters and crews to go to stories, or pay stringers to send stories from areas where there are no on site crews)?

Like the blogger, I expect to hear crickets.


----------



## Edward Campbell (21 Sep 2013)

Welcome to the 21st century where even government departments doing legitimate research feel a compulsion to advertise some things (and bury others) and where the media expects to be pampered and even to be bought.

There was nothing wrong with looking for the Franklin expedition ... not even when many other programmes are being gutted to save money. And the search should have been a good news story for someone, and CBC is crying poor so I expect one Ottawa hand washed another one.

I doubt that similar deals were offered to CTV, Global or Sun News.


----------



## a_majoor (1 Oct 2013)

All the Media outlets, from SUN to the CBC, are going to have to figure out how to crack this problem or die. CTV, being owned by a "pipe" (Bell) and any news or content providers who hook up with other "pipe" owners like Rogers, Shaw, Cogeco etc. will survive, but only as a subsidiary rather than an indipendent entity in their own right.

One other prediction. With the demise of "reader" services like RSS and the growth of services like Twitter being used to announce "news" to readers, the role of the "editor" may become much more important. If a editor or editorial service (or algorithm) can become a credible and trusted source of information (via tweets or whatever replaces that), then they will effectively become gateways for information services.

Amazon may be one model (it is a commercial service today, but who is to say they might not post "news articles of the day" or something like that for people who browse the site, and quite possibly tied to their noted preferences from previous visits or current browsing), Google with a vastly amplified tracking algorithm that sends hits based on your previous reading preferences, or Instapundit, where Glenn Reynolds curates links to news and events based on his interests. Specialized "magazines" may exist as well. NextBigFuture curates links to science and technology based news and events, and might be considered a "science" magazine like Discover or Popular Science.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-09-30/we-are-googling-the-new-york-times-to-death.html



> *We Are Googling the New York Times to Death*
> By Megan McArdle Sep 30, 2013 2:20 PM ET
> 
> This morning brought Eleanor Clift’s reminiscence about 50 years at Newsweek to my Twitter feed. Those words alone seem to tell the story: Newsweek was a phenomenally successful product designed for a world that no longer exists. It was an amazing world for journalists, to hear the great Clift describe it. But it couldn’t survive the new financial realities.
> ...


----------



## The Bread Guy (7 Oct 2013)

To be fair, thought it was worthwhile sharing this confession:


> A month ago I was pulled into an office by one of The Toronto Star’s city editors.
> 
> Two printouts were laid out on the desk in front of me. Two printouts of two different, yet uncannily similar, stories about rejected vanity licence plates in Ontario. A total of six paragraphs were similar in form and substance.
> 
> ...


----------



## vonGarvin (7 Oct 2013)

> Confession can bring relief, and can set the foundations for a new beginning.
> 
> So let the rebuilding begin with this confession: I plagiarized.



Sometimes the hardest person to forgive is yourself.


----------



## Journeyman (7 Oct 2013)

> I let down my editors, my Star colleague Dale and the Star readers.


Wow.....to let down a _Toronto Star_ reader.   I suppose the reality is, keeping to such high standards of literary excellence is all but impossible.  

Still....the shame.       :boring:


----------



## a_majoor (7 Oct 2013)

Despite his employer, I'll give _the author_ credit for admiting to his mistake and taking the punishment standing up.

Not too many of his fellow journalists would do so.


----------



## a_majoor (28 Oct 2013)

And yet we will hear protests there there is no "double standard" or "media bias" for or against political parties and personalities...

http://bcblue.wordpress.com/2013/10/28/how-many-liberals-need-to-go-to-jail-before-media-party-notice/



> *How many Liberals need to go to jail before Media Party notice?*
> October 28, 2013 — BC Blue
> 
> Currently, the Media Party is going ape over PM Stephen Harper now saying he dismissed his chief of staff Nigel Wright over the Mike Duffy cheque but of course almost completely silent with Liberal Joe Fontana going to court today on fraud charges.
> ...



The second article referenced. Indeed, there is no mention of any Liberals who may have been implicated in anything unsavoury:

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/10/27/michael-den-tadnt-mulcair-is-doing-the-work-in-the-senate-scandal-but-trudeau-will-reap-the-rewards/



> *Michael Den Tandt: Mulcair is doing the work in the Senate scandal, but Trudeau will reap the rewards*
> 
> Michael Den Tandt | 27/10/13 | Last Updated: 27/10/13 5:01 PM ET
> More from Michael Den Tandt | @mdentandt
> ...


----------



## The Bread Guy (8 Nov 2013)

Couldn't resist sharing the attached - interesting exercise when reading news stories  ;D


----------



## Remius (12 Nov 2013)

The CBC's coverage of JT's latest slip up also included a "but look at what Harper said about China"... :  I don't always think there is media bias but this was particularly crass.


----------



## pbi (17 Nov 2013)

Crantor said:
			
		

> The CBC's coverage of JT's latest slip up also included a "but look at what Harper said about China"... :  I don't always think there is media bias but this was particularly crass.



 I was quite surprised when I watched Rex Murphy's monologue on Thurs 14 Nov: he launched into quite an anti JT rant, at one point drawing not very subtle connections between JT and both Mao and Hitler (including background graphics showing those two). He left no doubt as to his opinion of JT.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (17 Nov 2013)

At least he doesn't appear to have hornswoggled the complete MSM with his total lack of substance.


----------



## Edward Campbell (17 Nov 2013)

pbi said:
			
		

> I was quite surprised when I watched Rex Murphy's monologue on Thurs 14 Nov: he launched into quite an anti JT rant, at one point drawing not very subtle connections between JT and both Mao and Hitler (including background graphics showing those two). He left no doubt as to his opinion of JT.




Comparing (almost) any mainstream Canadian politician to Mao or Hitler is odious.

M. Trudeau is a lightweight in a business that demands _gravitas_, but he has _heavyweight_ backers and handlers and that bothers me because we don't know what strings they will pull. Messers Harper and Mulcair have backers and handlers too, but we can, I believe, safely assume that they, Harper and Mulcair, are in charge and that they actually understand the policies they propose to us.


----------



## a_majoor (17 Nov 2013)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Comparing (almost) any mainstream Canadian politician to Mao or Hitler is odious.
> 
> M. Trudeau is a lightweight in a business that demands _gravitas_, but he has _heavyweight_ backers and handlers and that bothers me because we don't know what strings they will pull. Messers Harper and Mulcair have backers and handlers too, but we can, I believe, safely assume that they, Harper and Mulcair, are in charge and that they actually understand the policies they propose to us.



I recall in the "Mr. Dithers" era there was a very complicated diagram of Liberal supporters and power brokers, and all lines eventually led back to the Desmarais family (including real family ties with Canadian politicans). Regardless was this is true or not, whatever diagram existed in 2006 is probably still there with a few minor adjustments, while following the argument of "The Big Shift" the REAL power in Canada has steadily migrated away from the Toronto-Montreal corridor and is now growing in both the suburban "905" region and allied to the Western provinces.

So the Liberal movers and handlers will need to start looking beyond the so called Laurentian consensus, or get left behind. This process needs to be seen as evolutionary, otherwise you will end up with a Preston Manning: right place but a decade too early. If the Liberals want to make a breakthrough, they need to find a way to couple the Laurentian consensus to the new emerging centers of power. This is especially true if the Liberals want/need to go through Quebec as their route to power. Of course this means articulating a program and platform that has some real ideas and substance behind it....


----------



## Edward Campbell (18 Nov 2013)

I'm posting this article, an opinion piece which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, here, rather than in the Rob Ford thread, because it illustrates _*media bias*_, albeit of a sort hat some members here do not find objectionable:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/arts/television/why-the-ford-nation-tv-show-is-a-stroke-of-genius/article15456681/#dashboard/follows/


> Why the Ford Nation TV show is a stroke of genius
> 
> JOHN DOYLE
> The Globe and Mail
> ...




Now, I agree with John Doyle that we live in a (horrid) "reality TV world" and, on that basis, giving the Ford brothers their own TV show is, indeed, a stroke of marketing genius. But it is, also, a direct attack on the mainstream, _Laurentiam consensus_ media. This is *media bias* writ large; it is part of Sun media's continuing attack on, especially, the CBC. Canadians should not be persuaded that this is about giving Ford a voice or even about exploiting a situation for profit: this a one _wing_ of media bias versus another.


----------



## pbi (18 Nov 2013)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> ...So the Liberal movers and handlers will need to start looking beyond the so called Laurentian consensus, or get left behind. This process needs to be seen as evolutionary, otherwise you will end up with a Preston Manning: right place but a decade too early. If the Liberals want to make a breakthrough, they need to find a way to couple the Laurentian consensus to the new emerging centers of power. This is especially true if the Liberals want/need to go through Quebec as their route to power. Of course this means articulating a program and platform that has some real ideas and substance behind it....



As an avid reader of  "_The Big Shift_", I agree with you. I'm not sure that JT and his crew actually get this. That said, one thing about the Liberals is that historically they are usually pretty good at adopting/adapting other peoples' platform planks to get traction with the electorate.  I suppose that was inherent in their ability to hold the middle ground for long enough to develop the conceit of being "The Natural Governing Party".


----------



## Old Sweat (18 Nov 2013)

pbi said:
			
		

> As an avid reader of  "_The Big Shift_", I agree with you. I'm not sure that JT and his crew actually get this. That said, one thing about the Liberals is that historically they are usually pretty good at adopting/adapting other peoples' platform planks to get traction with the electorate.  I suppose that was inherent in their ability to hold the middle ground for long enough to develop the conceit of being "The Natural Governing Party".



The Liberals were indeed adaptable and masterful at following the middle ground. One should not forget that a great deal of their power base was the Quebec electorate, especially as the Conservatives seemed unusually adapt at doing things that alienated them from Quebec for a generation or more, for example hanging Riel and imposing conscription in the Great War. The shrinkage in the relative number of seats from Quebec was part of the Big Shift, and it remains to be seen what will come of the battle between the Grits and the NDP for these seats, which make up less than a quarter of the House of Commons. 'twas not the case a couple of decades ago, and I feel that this was understood far too well by the Quebec power brokers.


----------



## a_majoor (18 Nov 2013)

Since Prime Minister Harper and Thomas Mulcair are moving into the "middle", the LPC might be more like those unfortunate ships that tried to get into the Black Sea before the Argo: crushed between the clashing rocks.

Indeed, I'm positive Edward and several other commenters have made the point on this and other boards: this is _no accident_ but a deliberate policy on the part of the CPC and NDP to deny the Liberals the "middle ground". It is working too. The Liberals are a transactive party, so they don't stand for anything. When Marc Garneau was stumping for Liberal leadership, his platform could have been delivered by Thomas Mulcair without anyone noticing the difference. Similarly, Martha Hall Findlay's platform could have been delivered by Jim Flaherty without raising too many eyebrows. The Young Dauphin simply didn't say anything at all.

The CPC and NDP are Transformative parties (yeah, I know this is mostly in theory), but at least there is a philosophical "core" which informs what they say and (less frequently) what they do.


----------



## pbi (20 Nov 2013)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> ...The CPC and NDP are Transformative parties (yeah, I know this is mostly in theory), but at least there is a philosophical "core" which informs what they say and (less frequently) what they do...



Which is why they will probably keep chomping off pieces of the LPC base. I am probably a good example of the demographic that would be "expected" to vote Liberal, but at present I have no intention of doing that. I absolutely do not see JT as fit to lead this country. At least not yet, anyway.

The downside of this, and one I do not want to see at all in this country, is a descent into a US-style bipolar disorder, with entrenched Right and Left howling rhetoric at each other and destroying any reasonable middle ground. (Which is where, IMHO, most things get achieved politically)


----------



## Kirkhill (21 Nov 2013)

Is it just me (ie. Do I need to go out and buy more tinfoil?) or does anybody else wonder about a connection between the government eating the lunch of the Wireless/Cable companies by threatening to bring in competition and force prices down, AND, those self same companies, owning the TV and Radio stations, as  well as the magazines and newspapers that spend a great deal of time attacking the government?

Perhaps there is a yearning for the good old Liberal days and a degree of dissatisfaction with these "radical" conservatives.


----------



## Edward Campbell (29 Nov 2013)

For all the CBC haters around ... this business story will send financial and, eventually, policy ripples throughout the CBC.

The CBC has said it wil not ask for new funding, smart move ...

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Ottawa Citizen_ is a simplified view of the issue:






The CBC will continue to shed viewers, now at an accelerated rate ... costs, e.g. Peter Mansbridge's salary, will not fall unless there is some drastic pruning.

Now, those who admire _public broadcasting_ will see, in this situation, an opportunity ... ditto those who oppose the principle of "public" broadcasting.

Such editorial/journalistic bias as the CBC may have will not change ... unless or until you change the people. Ditto the CBC's cultural biases. And there's usually nothing in lost revenues that  will make poor management better.


----------



## a_majoor (29 Nov 2013)

Frankly the only way to change things is for the CBC (and everyone else) to get with the 21rst century and go "a la carte" or PPV. This should cover virtually every check box:

1. Don't want to pay for CBC=don't watch it
2. Admire CBC and willing to pay for it = watch it
3. CBC, SUN TV, CTV etc. all on an equal footing = check
4. Gets taxpayers off the hook/reduce government spending = check
5. Forces management to prioritize based on real metrics of veiwership and revenues = check

And the cable companies are feeding everyone a huge BS sandwitch if they claim "a la carte" viewing is impossible, it is technically very possible, and if you have a digital box (i.e. about 99% of all cable viewers now) quite easy to impliment. _Their_ revenue models are built on forcing subsidization of their properties via bundles. So breaking their straglehold will also benefit viewers.


----------



## The_Falcon (30 Nov 2013)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Frankly the only way to change things is for the CBC (and everyone else) to get with the 21rst century and go "a la carte" or PPV. This should cover virtually every check box:
> 
> 1. Don't want to pay for CBC=don't watch it
> 2. Admire CBC and willing to pay for it = watch it
> ...



It's slowly going that way thanks to the likes of Netflix, Hulu etc.  At least for the Americans and those who are willing and able to tweak their internet settings to bypass regional restrictions.

I read a few comments/articles about how this is the death of free over the air hockey, that remains to be seen.  The plus is that this opens up HNIC to a less Toronto centric base, which is something people have complained about for decades.


----------



## ModlrMike (30 Nov 2013)

Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> It's slowly going that way thanks to the likes of Netflix, Hulu etc.  At least for the Americans and those who are willing and able to tweak their internet settings to bypass regional restrictions.
> 
> I read a few comments/articles about how this is the death of free over the air hockey, that remains to be seen.  The plus is that this opens up HNIC to a less Toronto centric base, which is something people have complained about for decades.



At least now CBC will have a few extra hundred million per year to spread around. 

They shouldn't have to whine about ad revenues or fee for carriage... like that will ever happen  >


----------



## Fishbone Jones (30 Nov 2013)

Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> It's slowly going that way thanks to the likes of Netflix, Hulu etc.  At least for the Americans and those who are willing and able to tweak their internet settings to bypass regional restrictions.
> 
> I read a few comments/articles about how this is the death of free over the air hockey, that remains to be seen.  The plus is that this opens up HNIC to a less Toronto centric base, which is something people have complained about for decades.



Almost anything broadcast, or in theaters, past or present, including NHL games is available on XBMC.

I don't watch sports so I haven't looked into installing the add-ons (which may or may not require a subscription :dunno

Basic XBMC is a free download that you can use on your computer, tablets, smart phones or TV.

XBMC and NHL information: 

https://www.google.ca/search?q=xbmc+and+nhl&rls=com.microsoft:en-CA&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&startIndex=&startPage=1&gws_rd=cr&ei=kB6aUtDQAc7UoASu-oLABw


----------



## Edward Campbell (27 Dec 2013)

Preston Manning makes a pertinent point in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/senate-ethics-press-gallery-ethics/article16093020/#dashboard/follows/


> Senate ethics – what about Press Gallery ethics?
> 
> PRESTON MANNING
> Special to The Globe and Mail
> ...




Now, since I regard journalists as _tradesmen_ rather than as _professionals_ I don't know why they should be expected to have anything in the way of _ethics_ beyond what I should expect from a plumber or garage mechanic or a civil service clerk. I expect specific, detailed _ethical_ standards, an _ethos_, from lawyers, physicians, accountants, priests and soldiers,* but not from sales clerks, truck drivers, insurance agents or journalists.

_____
* There is some academic debate ~ see e.g. Huntington's _The Soldier and The State_ ~ re: who, exactly, qualifies as a member of the military profession. Is it all ranks or just officers? Do we expect the same _ethos_ and standards from all or do they differ with ranks and status?

_____

ff topic:

... but doe anyone else wonder if this _media_ thread shouldn't be merged what that one. The titles, at least, seem to have a lot in common.  >


----------



## Edward Campbell (2 Mar 2014)

I don't blame the media for this, I _blame_ us all; but has anyone else noticed that Mayor Rob Ford's trip to Hollywood and the Academy Awards receive almost as much attention as the situation in Ukraine?

We have become a celebrity obsessed culture.

The media is just doing what we ask demand: giving us more and more _fluff_ about inconsequential people and events while avoiding things that might frighten us ... or, at least, require us to think a bit.


----------



## ModlrMike (2 Mar 2014)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> The media is just doing what we ask demand: giving us more and more _fluff_ about inconsequential people and events while avoiding things that might frighten us ... or, at least, require us to think a bit.



I think it goes hand-in-glove with the inception of the 24 news cycle. The media needs to make news rather than simply report it in order to fill those 24 hours. Witness the Leslie non-story and how much mileage they got, and might continue to get out of that.


----------



## OldSolduer (4 Mar 2014)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I don't blame the media for this, I _blame_ us all; but has anyone else noticed that Mayor Rob Ford's trip to Hollywood and the Academy Awards receive almost as much attention as the situation in Ukraine?
> 
> We have become a celebrity obsessed culture.
> 
> The media is just doing what we ask demand: giving us more and more _fluff_ about inconsequential people and events while avoiding things that might frighten us ... or, at least, require us to think a bit.



Agreed sir.

We are fed too much cake and not enough broccoli and bran.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (4 Mar 2014)

As error goes, here is a small one, that would probably only be noted by a few trained observers that would then not be able to get it out of their mind when looking at it:

On the National last night, they presented a little "info-graphic" on the Russian forces status in Crimea. To denote warships off Sevasotpol, they had a ship outline with a "Russian" little flag in it. Problem is the ship outline was that of a British Type 42 stretched destroyer.

I know I am splitting hair here but, after you spend half your life going through all those "Recognition" magazines looking at outlines and pics from all possible angles and such,  you just can't help it.


----------



## George Wallace (4 Mar 2014)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> As error goes, here is a small one, that would probably only be noted by a few trained observers that would then not be able to get it out of their mind when looking at it:
> 
> On the National last night, they presented a little "info-graphic" on the Russian forces status in Crimea. To denote warships off Sevasotpol, they had a ship outline with a "Russian" little flag in it. Problem is the ship outline was that of a British Type 42 stretched destroyer.
> 
> I know I am splitting hair here but, after you spend half your life going through all those "Recognition" magazines looking at outlines and pics from all possible angles and such,  you just can't help it.




I know the feeling and really have to bite my tongue when I go to the movies.


----------



## OldSolduer (4 Mar 2014)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I know the feeling and really have to bite my tongue when I go to the movies.



Same here.


----------



## Brad Sallows (4 Mar 2014)

>Is it all ranks or just officers?

All are subject to the same qualifying conditions for a "profession".  And "engineers" (as in "PE") belong in the list.


----------



## a_majoor (21 Mar 2014)

More on the future of the CBC. It seems their management really has no clue at all of how to work in the new media environment, and the CBC may end up as some sort of subsidized "Disneyland" for media students and reenactors to see how media operated in the 20th century....

http://arts.nationalpost.com/2014/03/20/to-survive-life-after-hockey-the-cbc-must-change-if-it-can/



> *To survive life after hockey, the CBC must change — if it can*
> 
> Scott Stinson | March 20, 2014 | Last Updated: Mar 20 5:04 PM ET
> More from Scott Stinson | @scott_stinson
> ...


----------



## The_Falcon (8 Apr 2014)

A Major posted to Halifax is suing the gov't over denied moving expense claim.  Not to say that didn't happen or he isn't entitled but the sensationalism ,having to pick bottles and sell furniture, as a Major which START at $100k for a salary........yeah...something isn't adding up here.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/canadian-forces-major-sues-feds-over-moving-bill-1.2603391



> A Canadian Forces major is taking the federal government to court next week in Halifax for what he says is its refusal to follow its own policy on military family relocation.
> 
> Maj. Marcus Brauer has spent the last four years battling the federal government. He moved with his family in May 2010 after he was transferred from Edmonton to CFB Halifax.
> 
> ...


----------



## dapaterson (8 Apr 2014)

See http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/95326.0


----------



## The_Falcon (8 Apr 2014)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> See http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/95326.0



I guess this particular update on the story belong here IMO (unless my fellow mods feel otherwise), given the sensational comments attributed in the article  "He now carries $73,000 of debt and has resorted to selling furniture and picking bottles".  I have a hard time believing this isn't hyperbole.


----------



## Edward Campbell (14 May 2014)

It isn't just readers/listeners/viewers or peole of a conservative bent who complain about journalistic bias. In this video clip NDP leaders Thomas Mulcair rips into CTV's Laurie Graham over the current NDP 'satelliet office' affair - which may or may not be a breach of the rules.


----------



## Kat Stevens (15 May 2014)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> It isn't just readers/listeners/viewers or peole of a conservative bent who complain about journalistic bias. In this video clip NDP leaders Thomas Mulcair rips into CTV's Laurie Graham over the current NDP 'satelliet office' affair - which may or may not be a breach of the rules.



No fan of the NDP, but way to go Tom for the broadside.  It would have been nice to have a camera on her too, hehe.


----------



## Edward Campbell (9 Jun 2014)

I am assuming (or is it just the triumph of hope over experience?) that most (many? some? at least a couple of?) members of _Unifor_ Local 87-M, "historically known as the _Southern Ontario Newsmedia Guild_" will denounce their union leadership and demand decertification for this message ...  :dunno:


----------



## a_majoor (11 Jun 2014)

Considering that I hear at least 3 union or union front ads for every single political party ad, this really is no surprise. If the workers are able to raise the issue or attempt to get decertification, they will probably have to jump through even more hoops of fire than the PCPO would need to get a majority government.


----------



## Edward Campbell (26 Jun 2014)

Those who love to hate the CBC may find this graphic, produced by the _Friends of Canadian Broadcasting_ a very, very pro-CBC lobby group, interesting:







It shows, pretty clearly, using values that have been adjusted for inflation, that Prime Minister Harper's _cuts_ to the CBC have been far less drastic than were Prime Minister Chrétien's.

I well recall the 1995-1999 period: Messers Chrétien and Martin were cutting DND even more drastically than they were cutting the CBC, as is Prime Minister Harper, I _think_.

I happen to agree with the CBC's management: the existing model of broadcasting doesn't work ... not in Canada and not in Europe and not even in the USA. I don't know what the right answer is ...*

_____
* And I don't say that very often.


----------



## Edward Campbell (27 Jun 2014)

At the risk of derailing this thread ...  

This article, which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, indicates what is wrong, in my opinion, with most "thinking" (I'm using that term loosely) about broadcasting, specifically _public_ broadcasting and, indeed, journalism:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/the-cbcs-a-service-not-a-business/article19354362/#dashboard/follows/


> The CBC’s a service, not a business
> 
> WADE ROWLAND
> Contributed to The Globe and Mail
> ...




Prof Rowland relies upon variations of the _Canadian Radio Broadcasting Act_ which have been enunciated since 1932. The current version, the Broadcasting Act (S.C. 1991, c. 11), says that "the Canadian broadcasting system, operating primarily in the English and French languages and comprising public, private and community elements, makes use of radio frequencies that are public property and provides, through its programming, a public service essential to the maintenance and enhancement of national identity and cultural sovereignty." That's the "public need" which Prof Rowland says the CBC is uniquely mandated to satisfy. Clearly the CBC is not the only player in the game; the _Act_ specifically says that "private and community elements" also have roles; it does not assign a primary role to _public_ broadcasting.

My next issue is that Prof Rowland says that _PBS_, in the USA, is "the best of the world’s public-service broadcasters." I have no idea on what criteria his assessment rests but he has, very, very clearly, forgotten e.g. CCTV in China which serves about 1 Billion viewers using 45 "over the air" channels plus cable and internet based channels serving a global audience or _MediaCorp_ in Singapore. PBS is a good, albeit expensive, _public_ broadcasting service, but it relies heavily upon foreign, especially BBC, programming. Tiny Singapore (a nation-state with about Toronto's population) manages to, nearly, fill one TV channel with homegrown, popular (people actually watch it) entertainment and information. CCTV, for its part, produces vast amounts of programming, in several languages, for domestic and foreign consumption ~ some is, very clearly, crude, Communist Party propaganda, much of it is entertainment with a _nationalist_ message and there are, also, large news and children's/education divisions. Some (a lot) of the education, documentary, news and education programmes have very high production values.

This brings me to _journalism_. If there is a mandate to "serve the needs and interests, and reflect the circumstances and aspirations, of Canadian men, women and children, including equal rights, the linguistic duality and multicultural and multiracial nature of Canadian society and the special place of aboriginal peoples within that society" (_Broadcasting Act_ (S.C. 1991, c. 11, §3.d.iii) then, _ipso facto_ the whole broadcasting system, not just the CBC, is required to be a propaganda arm of government. Is that what Prof Rowland really wants? If yes, then we had better look long and hard at CCTV to see how to do it right. If not then we need to look at e.g. Hong Kong, which does have one government owned "news agency" which is what, I suspet Hubert Lacroix has in mind for the CBC.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (27 Jun 2014)

Just a small point ERC,

Prof. Rowland does not refer to PBS (Public Broadcasting System) in the USA, he refers to P S B, the public services's broadcasters, a category that includes all of the various types of public broadcasters, including CBC, PBS, BBC etc.

It does not detract from the point you are making but eviscerates the examples you use.


----------



## Edward Campbell (27 Jun 2014)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Just a small point ERC,
> 
> Prof. Rowland does not refer to PBS (Public Broadcasting System) in the USA, he refers to P S B, the public services's broadcasters, a category that includes all of the various types of public broadcasters, including CBC, PBS, BBC etc.
> 
> It does not detract from the point you are making but eviscerates the examples you use.




Thanks, OGBD, I missed that - I'm going to plead tired old eyes in my defence - but I  think that _MediaCorp_, most likely, and CCTV, certainly, would self identify as PSBs, so I think my use of them as examples of _public service_ broadcasters stands.


----------



## a_majoor (27 Jun 2014)

The CBC and most other media is still caught in an obsolete business model. Journalism and entertainment are services, as noted, and people are willing to pay for a service that they want or need. The idea of broadcasting to everyone indiscriminately made sense in the 1930's, when broadcast technology was primitive and expensive, and very few systems actually existed. (For fans of The Clash, the line "_London calling from the top of the dial_" comes from that time. My family used to have a radio which was set up that way, instead of stations and frequencies the dial actually had London, Paris, Berlin etc. marked on it, since there was only _one_ national station broadcasting on that frequency).

Today, of course, you can dip your cup into a raging torrent of content through Internet services like Netflix, ROKU, Songza, YouTube and dozens of others. You can select what you like, and indeed pay for it _a la carte_. It is annoying that with cable or broadcast media, you end up either paying for stuff you don't want (cable bundles) or having ads forced on you to support whatever content you do want (but also supporting content you care nothing about).

CBC, if it survives at all, will be one of millions or even billions of specialty "channels" on a YouTube like service. IF they are smart, they will try to identify a target audience that is willing to pay for their nuggets of wisdom so they can make the transition. Otherwise, they will simply vanish into the background noise. Considering their dismal viewership (despite the advantage of billions of dollars of subsidies), I think vanishing into the background is probably going to be their fate. Any service provider who does not identify and satisfy their audience will suffer a similar fate.


----------



## Occam (1 Jul 2014)

:facepalm:


----------



## CombatDoc (1 Jul 2014)

If those are CF-18s per CBC, I foresee a name change on this forum:  Supersonic Max --> Subsonic Max.  ;D


----------



## Tibbson (1 Jul 2014)

The new F/A 18 G perhaps?   Or maybe these are the F35, stripped down bare bones version.

I did notice that on their second pass the commentator made sure she got it right?


----------



## a_majoor (1 Jul 2014)

You were watching the CBC?


----------



## PPCLI Guy (2 Jul 2014)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> You were watching the CBC?


----------



## Colin Parkinson (2 Jul 2014)

It's an RCAF plot to show the vast improvement offered by the F-35 over the "CF-18's" the Snowbirds fly.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (2 Jul 2014)

I don't see how this is any different from most of the stuff they "report" on the CAF ???


----------



## dimsum (3 Jul 2014)

Colin P said:
			
		

> It's an RCAF plot to show the vast improvement offered by the F-35 over the "CF-18's" the Snowbirds fly.



:rofl:

If only it were true.


----------



## Edward Campbell (14 Jul 2014)

Certainly not a surprise that, as the _Ottawa Citizen_ reports, a "Carleton University journalism professor Allan Thompson will announce Monday that he wants to run as a Liberal candidate in the next federal election." Allan Thompson spent 17 years with the _Toronto Star_.


----------



## a_majoor (14 Jul 2014)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Certainly not a surprise that, as the _Ottawa Citizen_ reports, a "Carleton University journalism professor Allan Thompson will announce Monday that he wants to run as a Liberal candidate in the next federal election." Allan Thompson spent 17 years with the _Toronto Star_.



I would have thought the NDP was a closer fit...


----------



## ModlrMike (14 Jul 2014)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Certainly not a surprise that, as the _Ottawa Citizen_ reports, a "Carleton University journalism professor Allan Thompson will announce Monday that he wants to run as a Liberal candidate in the next federal election." Allan Thompson spent 17 years with the _Toronto Star_.



Because we know how much the press loves journalist parliamentarians.  :


----------



## Rifleman62 (16 Jul 2014)

Via Small Dead Animals

http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/your-moral-and-195.html

*John Baird slams CBC question on Gaza conflict.*


----------



## Kilo_302 (16 Jul 2014)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Via Small Dead Animals
> 
> http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/your-moral-and-195.html
> 
> *John Baird slams CBC question on Gaza conflict.*



HERE'S some media bias. No major media outlet in Canada reported on this is somewhat shocking statement by an Israeli MP: 

http://www.jpost.com/Operation-Protective-Edge/Erdogan-Ayelet-Shaked-has-same-mindset-as-Hitler-362877

The CBC is NOT biased against Israel, that's a joke. They're reporting treats the whole thing like a struggle between equals. This narrative only helps Israel.


----------



## a_majoor (16 Jul 2014)

And the fun apparently continued beyond the posted exchange! (from comments)



> It's too bad they cut out the rest of the exchange:
> 
> Baird: In fairness, you're a member of our national broadcaster, we deserve better questions than that.
> CBC: My point is that the Conservative party takes public positions on a variety of issues to gain supporters, and that's a form of advertising.
> ...



Poor Baird, forced to fight an unarmed opponent in a battle of wits... :cheers:

Now if we could only get the other Cabinet ministers and MPs to start delivering these sorts of smack downs (and given the quality of the reporters being sent at them, it would be much like dropping a grenade into a barrel of fish. That means _you_, CBC "reporters" who are monitoring the site).


----------



## Haggis (16 Jul 2014)

A bit of a tangent here, which illustrates - in bold - not only a journalists poor writing skills, but an abject lack of proof reading, shared with the usual disclaimers.

Hollywood actress Sandra Bullock *locked herself in her bedroom *and dialled 911 after *she came face-to-face with an intruder in the hallway of her home* last month.

 Joshua Corbett, 39, is facing charges including residential burglary and stalking after he was arrested at the Gravity star's mansion in California.

* Bullock was at home at the time of the incident*, and now details about her ordeal have come to light.

 Official police paperwork, obtained by TMZ.com, reveals the Oscar winner got out of bed in the early hours of the morning after she heard a banging noise* inside the house*. She then came face-to-face with a man in the hallway, and ran back *to her bedroom*, locked the door and called for emergency services.

 Bullock has since obtained a restraining order against Corbett, who is also facing a number of firearms charges after cops allegedly discovered a stash of weapons at his home.


----------



## PuckChaser (16 Jul 2014)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> And the fun apparently continued beyond the posted exchange! (from comments)
> 
> Poor Baird, forced to fight an unarmed opponent in a battle of wits... :cheers:
> 
> Now if we could only get the other Cabinet ministers and MPs to start delivering these sorts of smack downs (and given the quality of the reporters being sent at them, it would be much like dropping a grenade into a barrel of fish. That means _you_, CBC "reporters" who are monitoring the site).



Raw video of the exchange. http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/video/featured/straight-talk-and-hard-news/868018287001/raw-john-baird-slams-cbc-question-on-gaza-conflict/3676378428001


----------



## Poppa (21 Aug 2014)

or......
http://www.pressfortruth.ca/featured-videos/massive-joint-military-training-exercise-in-niagara-region-ontario/

anic:


----------



## Kirkhill (21 Aug 2014)

Good Lord!  And apparently they are even letting Scots in.   Wha kens whaur this micht end?  >


----------



## Tibbson (21 Aug 2014)

Poppa said:
			
		

> or......
> http://www.pressfortruth.ca/featured-videos/massive-joint-military-training-exercise-in-niagara-region-ontario/
> 
> anic:



I remember doing similar exercises with the Lincs back in the early 80s.  The only difference is we didnt have some numpty running around with a video camera and an agenda asking loaded questions.


----------



## Kilo_302 (21 Aug 2014)

Wow I watched that report. There are no words. He's giving indie media a bad name, it was so unprofessional. Zero research. Zero common sense.


----------



## vonGarvin (21 Aug 2014)

Biggest military exercise.  Ever.


----------



## bick (21 Aug 2014)

Our military vehicles are actually green. Haven't been camo in a long time.


----------



## Marchog (21 Aug 2014)

Poppa said:
			
		

> or......
> http://www.pressfortruth.ca/featured-videos/massive-joint-military-training-exercise-in-niagara-region-ontario/
> 
> anic:


Wow, looks like some kind of crazy truther site or something.


----------



## George Wallace (21 Aug 2014)

Poppa said:
			
		

> or......
> http://www.pressfortruth.ca/featured-videos/massive-joint-military-training-exercise-in-niagara-region-ontario/
> 
> anic:



That would be hilarious, if it wasn't so sadly researched and presented.  He really should have edited it after the Capt PAFFO sorted him out near the end.  I guess we can expect more of this.  Can't wait for his next report, to get another good chuckle.

That soldier who did not know what BFA stood for, really didn't put a good light on the military for all us old army guys.


----------



## jollyjacktar (21 Aug 2014)

Hmmmm, the pressfortruth link won't work for me... :Tin-Foil-Hat:  something's fishy...  he's been, erased perhaps...


----------



## The Bread Guy (21 Aug 2014)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Hmmmm, the pressfortruth link won't work for me... :Tin-Foil-Hat:  something's fishy...  he's been, erased perhaps...


Slight change in address
http://www.pressfortruth.ca/top-stories/massive-joint-military-training-excercise-niagara-region-ontario/
Warning:  14 minutes you'll never get back.
Troops from both England AND Scotland taking part, too!


----------



## Marchog (21 Aug 2014)

Any from Wales?


----------



## bick (21 Aug 2014)

Another great example of a journalist who didn't take his time to fact check anything before he rolled film. This time though, I really enjoyed the paranoid slant. Hopefully we get another episode.


----------



## dimsum (21 Aug 2014)

To be fair, I would take anything from something called "press for truth" with a heaping mound of salt.


----------



## cupper (21 Aug 2014)

:facepalm:


----------



## Kilo_302 (22 Aug 2014)

Looks like he deleted all the comments too. I left a good one


----------



## eliminator (22 Aug 2014)

http://www.chch.com/niagara-falls-man-military-exercises-dont-pointing-rifles-civilians/


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (22 Aug 2014)

A big question here: Did the local MSM take this seriously.

What I mean is that, whenever we train off base in realistic scenarios like this EX (especially very large ones), the medias are usually warned weeks in advance and on numerous occasions and the releases are quite clear as to the extent to which soldiers or people in uniform, with guns and combat vehicles are expected to be in the public eyes.

The military is counting on the MSM to advise the population so it doesn't come as a surprise to them (sure , you will always have some uninformed people out there that don't pay attention, but …).

It seems to me that in the present case, we didn't hear much from the MSM before the EX.


----------



## George Wallace (22 Aug 2014)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> A big question here: Did the local MSM take this seriously.
> 
> What I mean is that, whenever we train off base in realistic scenarios like this EX (especially very large ones), the medias are usually warned weeks in advance and on numerous occasions and the releases are quite clear as to the extent to which soldiers or people in uniform, with guns and combat vehicles are expected to be in the public eyes.
> 
> ...



Having been involved in "Land Clearance" for a large scale Exercise in Eastern Ontario, there should be little surprise to an Locals of military personnel and vehicles being present.  If there is, it is due to the local municipalities not passing down the word to the lower levels.  I had to visit every Municipal Office in the area of the Exercise to get permission to use Public Lands, every Police Detachment to give them the heads up that we would be in the area, and also any Provincial and National Park Service that may have lands that could possibly be used.  "Land Clearance" is quite extensively done months prior to an Exercise of this sort.  At the same time the local media is notified well in advance, and notices are printed in local newspapers and announced on local radio and TV stations.  If anyone is ill-informed about military activities in the area, it is because they don't pay attention to the 'news'.  I am sure that this 'reporter' had warning well in advance to prepare for his sojourn into reporting these activities, coming prepared with a cameraman.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (22 Aug 2014)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> A big question here: Did the local MSM take this seriously.
> 
> What I mean is that, whenever we train off base in realistic scenarios like this EX (especially very large ones), the medias are usually warned weeks in advance and on numerous occasions and the releases are quite clear as to the extent to which soldiers or people in uniform, with guns and combat vehicles are expected to be in the public eyes.
> 
> ...



From what I've seen here and talking to some higher level friends that are on the Ex, units were rolling out from their home locations and still didn't have a plan or know what was going on. Basically ' Be at this location, at this time, with as many people and vehicles as you can bring. More orders to follow'.

If the training audience had no idea what was going on, why would the MSM?


----------



## Poppa (22 Aug 2014)

There was lot of coordination done, and a most if not all folks I came across knew we were here and that we were coming. The Press for Truth dude had an agenda and the dude complaining about having guns pointed at him wanted his camera time.


----------



## The Bread Guy (22 Aug 2014)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> It seems to me that in the present case, we didn't hear much from the MSM before the EX.


To be fair, keep in mind there may have been a fair bit of _local_ media coverage that others living elsewhere may not have seen/read/heard.



			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> ....  the local media is notified well in advance, and notices are printed in local newspapers and announced on local radio and TV stations.  If anyone is ill-informed about military activities in the area, it is because they don't pay attention to the 'news'.


 :nod:  As a former "guy with a face suited for radio" type myself, I can confirm that even if something makes it onto the airwaves, people may only be half-listening/watching, so no guarantees of "message sent = message received".



			
				recceguy said:
			
		

> If the training audience had no idea what was going on, why would the MSM?


 :nod:  It certainly helps knowing what's going to be going on before telling media what's going to be going on.

P.S. - moving the media bits over to the media thread.  *Milnet.ca Staff*


----------



## Edward Campbell (19 Sep 2014)

A lot of people will disagree, but I suspect Terence Corocoran is, in this article which is reproduced under the fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _National Post_,  closer to _right_ than I am (I advocate selling all of CBC TV, Englsih and French, and filling the public broadcasting mandate, found in the Broadcasting Act §3.d. through a combination of commercial free (100% taxpayer funded) radio broadcast - mosly over the air but also with an internet component - in three service: English, French and International):

http://linkis.com/natpo.st/Ye3JE


> Get the CBC out of the free market
> 
> Terence Corcoran | September 19, 2014
> 
> ...




I, _personally_, think that TV is unnecessary to meet either of the letter or the spirit of the Broadcasting Act; radio (audio) and internet audio ought to be sufficient, but I understand that 99% of Canadians likely disagree.

Mr Corcoran's solution is workable and can be managed within a tight ($1.3 Billion) budget, but all you CBC TV viewers get a boatload of _Little Mosque on the Prairie_ reruns.


----------



## Kirkhill (20 Sep 2014)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I, _personally_, think that TV is unnecessary to meet either of the letter or the spirit of the Broadcasting Act; radio (audio) and internet audio ought to be sufficient, but I understand that 99% of Canadians likely disagree.
> 
> Mr Corcoran's solution is workable and can be managed within a tight ($1.3 Billion) budget, but all you CBC TV viewers get a boatload of _Little Mosque on the Prairie_ reruns.



But ERC you obviously grew up building your own crystal set.....

With respect to the CBC getting nothing but government funding I am torn between two analogies:

The government will end up subsidizing the world's last wagon wheel maker
The government will end up subsiding the last state church even when the pews are empty.

Traditional TV is under as much attack as traditional print media.  Both of them are going to have to find a way to work through the internet and connect with those people that want what they want to sell.

If they want to sell liberal left views then they need to first of all figure out how to connect with liberal left surfers.  If they want to convert conservative right surfer to the liberal left philosophy they are going to have to do things a lot differently.  Either way it is unlikely to involve Father Peter serving up a benediction at 10:30.


----------



## Edward Campbell (20 Sep 2014)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> But ERC you obviously grew up building your own crystal set.....
> 
> With respect to the CBC getting nothing but government funding I am torn between two analogies:
> 
> ...




That's actually true ... didn't everyone?

Mine (built in the late 1940s or very early 1950s) looked a little like this (an advert from a _Sears_ catalogue):






I _think_ my Grandfather bought it from the local hardware/general store, probably - almost certainly, I would think, for less than $10.00. (He wasn't given to spending money.)

It looked _something like_ this ... not nearly as neatly made, I was only seven or eight!






In the 1920s and '30s crystal sets were in common use for radio reception; by the 1940s and '50s, they were for kids to play with ... and maybe learn a bit of something.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (20 Sep 2014)

Been there, done that


----------



## Edward Campbell (24 Sep 2014)

Over in the _Election 2015_ thread, I posted this:



			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> > Quote from: E.R. Campbell on 2014-09-20, 13:56:57
> > For the record, regarding Hiva Mohammad Alizadeh, an Iranian born Canadian citizen who was sentenced to 24 years in prison for acts a judge described as being akin to treason ...
> >
> > Justin Trudeau's (non) response ... (two revealing video clips)
> ...



Now, Prof Emmett Macfarlane (Waterloo University) gives a considered opinion on the issue in this blog post which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from _Policy Options_:

http://policyoptions.irpp.org/2014/09/24/politicians-and-media-boycotts/


> Politicians and media boycotts
> 
> Emmett Macfarlane
> 
> ...




I agree with Prof Macfarlane, it is us, the reading/listening/viewing public, who will decide who crossed what line.

My _opinion_:

     1. Ezra Levant is a bombastic buffoon who did, indeed, cross a line ~ a "good manners" line, at least. But he need not apologize, he is an _entertainer_, a clown, he's supposed to be a bombastic
         buffoon, it's his role. But someone, and I suggest The Right Honourable Brian Mulroney, P.C., C.C., LL.D, Chairman of the Board of Québécor should offer a corp[ortae apology to M. Trudeau for Ezra Levant's
         bad manners ~ not for speaking out, but for simple bad manners; and

     2. I think Justin Trudeau, personally, and his campaign team, professionally, also crossed a line. First, M. Trudeau ignores questions which he finds inconvenient or uncomfortable (in my _opinion_ he
         ignores questions for which he does not have a scripted answer, he's an intellectual lightweight who cannot think on his feet and is going to be a weak, poor prime minister). Second his team have made a _strategic_ blunder:
         they have made M. Trudeau look weak and petty ~ I think he is weak but I do not believe he is petty.


----------



## Lightguns (24 Sep 2014)

All Levant did was update news from the 60s and 70s about PET's appetites.  None of it was lies, bad manners, yup.  Me thinks the young fellow is typical of his generation, thinned skinned and over indulged.  It is a good excuse not to answer those tough questions and will appease the voting base precepetions of Sun News.  The Liberals know for a fact that CTV or CBC will never ask those nasty questions about the Liberal Hug-A-Terrorist, Get-A-Minority-Vote strategy.  Beats kissing smelly babies I guess!  Going to be an awful mess to clean up in 2020!  I am more interested in his views on taking passports away from Terrorists than Daddy Chairman's STDs but we will never know those views.


----------



## Journeyman (24 Sep 2014)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> ....Trudeau's campaign team has decided to boycott all of Sun Media....


  :tempertantrum:


Great.  Another sleepless night  -- _not_


----------



## OldSolduer (24 Sep 2014)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> :tempertantrum:
> 
> 
> Great.  Another sleepless night  -- _not_



Young Mr. Trudeau was at the Canadian Army run, mugging for the cameras with  some of the Soldier On troops. He was largely ignored.


----------



## MARS (24 Sep 2014)

The good professor appears to contradict himself, in my opinion.

Early on he says this:

"...I’m not sure press freedom is actually at stake here. No one is required to answer anyone’s questions. Freedom of the press is about making sure the government doesn’t restrict journalists; it doesn’t guarantee that reporters land interviews."

Then he says this:

"We should want, indeed demand, that our elected leaders face the most challenging, even the most adversarial, line of questions. Answering to a free press is a fundamental feature of basic democracy."

What am I missing here?

My understanding of "freedom of the press" is a press free from undue influence of the government in what, how or when they report things. (items of National Security and secrecy notwithstanding).  

I agree with his first statement.  I find his second statement to be a very nice ideal, one which would likely improve the average person's 'trust' in politicians (in long-term, general terms, putting them somwhere above lawyers and used car salesmen on those annual 'trust' surveys.  I understand the problems that would plague the communications staff of politicians in the short term if they did indeed go about answering those kinds of questions).  But I don't see what it has to do with a 'free press'.


----------



## Edward Campbell (24 Sep 2014)

The American journalist AJ Liebling said, "Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one."

It's actually an important principle. The media, the journalists, are nothing special; they have no special role to hold politicians to account and so forth. In fact, another wit, one who did own the presses, quipped that the only role of journalists is to fill up the empty white spaces between the advertisements. 

But, and there's always a 'but,' isn't there? the media does have an important role in a free society: it gives us 'access' into our political, legal, social and economic _processes_, and, ideally, informs us about them and the issues of the day. 

I think, however, that it's important to separate what Ezra Levant does, _infotainment_ and what e.g. David Akin and Mercedes Stephenson do, reporting. (I will use those two as examples, again, because they know some of us, here on Army.ca, and some of us know them either person ally or professionally.) I _think_ Prof Macfarlane's definition of "freedom of the press," the press, the Akins and Stephensons of the world, being 'free' from government control (but not from government _influence_, which is why government's a have e.g. press secretaries and communications directors and so on) is adequate. Freedom of the press does not apply to e.g. Ezra Levant; he's not in the 'ress' business; he's a 21st century version of the 16th and 17th century pamphleteers.

The media, in truth, has no _right_ of access to politicians. But, Prof Macfarlane _challenges_ politicians to use or _exploit_ the media in order to _influence_ us by answering the tough questions. So, I don't think he's actually contradicting himself.

But: I will repeat that I think M. Trudeau is uncomfortable with hard questions; my _guess_ is that he is a very, very nice, personable young man with an adequate brain, but he lacks _depth_ or "bottom" as the Brits would say, in policy. Lightweight was the word I used and I stick with it. If that's true then his campaign team's strategy of ignoring hard questions and, now, ignoring one whole media agency, is a good one. The press is still as 'free' as it ever was, but M. Trudeau is not answering.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (24 Sep 2014)

Actually, freedom of the press is a sub-category of the freedom of expression enjoyed by all.

The Canadian Charter of Rights states (Article 2):

 Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
(a)	freedom of conscience and religion;
(b)	freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
(c)	freedom of peaceful assembly; and
(d)	freedom of association.

[I underlined].

Sure, everyone has the right not to answer journalists questions, but for a politician to refuse to do so usually caries consequences. Who hasn't heard the good'ol "We attempted to obtain an interview with XYZ, but they declined to be interviewed on TV".

I don't see the contradiction MARS appears to see in the Prof.'s article: To me, when he says "Answering to a free press is a fundamental feature of basic democracy.", he is talking about a fundamental feature for the politicians., not for the press. Politicians, in our democracy, answer to the citizens and therefore, in view of the place of the press (note that I didn't say role, but "place") in the communication of information in our modern world, they should feel compelled to use that channel of communication with the citizens every time it is offered.


----------



## MARS (24 Sep 2014)

Seen.  That makes sense.  Thanks


----------



## Edward Campbell (25 Sep 2014)

I think John Ibbitson has it about right in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/its-over-crtc-netflix-and-globalization-have-won/article20784448/#dashboard/follows/


> t’s over, CRTC. Netflix and globalization have won
> 
> JOHN IBBITSON
> Special to The Globe and Mail
> ...




What this means for mainstream media is:

     1. Uniquely Canadian TV content is dead, unless it appeals to, at least, an American or British audience. CBC TV is, or might as well be, dead, too.

     2. There will still be French Canadian TV ... I _think_. 

     3. There still can be, and I _believe_ will be vibrant, original Canadian radio: think _Ideas_, _Tapestry_ and _Writers and Company_, for example, all on CBC Radio
         and all with respectable audiences in  Canada and in the USA.

     4. There is, still, some, limited, role for _local_ TV News, public affairs and _talent_ programmes. My _guess_ is that Toronto and Vancouver can still produce
         some _original_ local programming - 'reality TV' and talent programmes are incredibly cheap to produce, and Montreal can still produce original, local French TV.

     5. Canadians who already produce popular, profitable _global_ programming - early childhood and educational programmes come to mind, but there are others, including e.g. some home handyman shows,
         will likely still be in business and will still be making money.


----------



## Good2Golf (25 Sep 2014)

Perhaps NetFlix was following the CBC's lead when it came to answering the CRTC's questions?  ???


----------



## Edward Campbell (27 Sep 2014)

Not really true, but it shows the level of frustration that many people have with the _mainstream media_ and journalism, in general:


----------



## Edward Campbell (28 Sep 2014)

The media don't _always_ get it back asswards ...






  :nod:    ;D    :nod:    ;D


----------



## Good2Golf (28 Sep 2014)

That was well done... :nod:


----------



## The Bread Guy (28 Sep 2014)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> The media don't _always_ get it back asswards ...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Touché!


----------



## a_majoor (28 Sep 2014)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I think John Ibbitson has it about right in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:
> 
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/its-over-crtc-netflix-and-globalization-have-won/article20784448/#dashboard/follows/
> 
> ...



If you strike out the word "Canadian" in point one, creators of unique programming will continue to thrive and prosper, regardless of their location. A talented videographer in Ulanbator can leverage the global reach of Netflicks just as easily as one in Saskatoon. Indeed the one in Sakatoon has much better chances: access to studio quality equipment at consumer prices, a common language and very similar culture to the largest English speaking audiences in the world, and access to high speed Internet to distribute the product.


----------



## Edward Campbell (29 Sep 2014)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> ...
> Now Ezra Levant gave what I would _guess_, I have not watched it, a typically Ezra Levant rant about Justin Trudeau ~ that is to say, bombastic, edging on being libelous, in poor taste, with scant respect for accuracy, etc ~ in his _commentary_ programme. That's what Ezra Levant is: a _commentator_. he is not a journalist in the way that, say, David Akin or Mercedes Stephenson (both of whom are known to members this site) are journalists, he doesn't report the 'news;' he is not even a 'journalist' in the way that, say, the _Globe and Mail's_ Jeffrey Simpson or Lawrence Martin, both highly opinionated, are journalists, he doesn't address big, national issues; he is of a newer, shriller, highly partisan variety that originated in the UK tabloids but has been transformed by US TV.
> 
> But M. Trudeau's campaign team has decided to boycott all of _Sun Media_, "until the company [Québécor Inc.] resolves the matter." Here is the text of the message sent out by M. Trudeau’s spokesperson Kate Purchase"
> ...



Now, it appears, according to a story in the _Ottawa Citizen_ that Prime Minister Mulroney has "reached out," through the media itself, to _Team Trudeau_ in an effort to calm the waters.

It seems to me than an apology is due ... for uncivil _commentary_, but as has been noted M. Trudeau was *already boycotting* _Sun News_ because real (and quite civil) journalists were asking tough questions. He, Justin Trudeau, owes an apology to all Canadians for being unwilling or unable to address issues that mater.

(Further, we discussed the issue of _civility_ here, on Army.ca, a couple of years ago ...)


----------



## a_majoor (29 Sep 2014)

Frankly, if the Young Dauphin and his team are unable to deal with Ezra Levant and the Sun News team, imagine how well they would do against Vladimir Putin or Xi Jinping. Most of the third world thugs in silk suits would also walk right over the Liberal team.

I think I see the shape of the next set of attack ads.....


----------



## Edward Campbell (29 Sep 2014)

The apology, such as it was, was issued.

It doesn't really address the issue ... M. Trudeau was, already boycotting Sun Media before Mr Levant's ill mannered diatribe. When is M. Trudeau going to apologize to Canadians for being unable to answer even remotely tough questions?


----------



## ModlrMike (29 Sep 2014)

Further to the Netflix / Google story:

LINK

CRTC to Netflix: Since you won't co-operate, we'll ignore you
Netflix and Google refuse to hand over figures about Canadian content on the web

Canada's broadcast regulator is hitting the "delete" button on Netflix and Google, telling the online video services their submissions at hearings into the future of television will be ignored.

The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission wrote to the companies Monday, saying it will remove presentations made by the two companies from the public record.

As well, any information or statements from the companies would not be considered in the CRTC's conclusions on whether television industry regulations need to be changed.


----------



## Old Sweat (29 Sep 2014)

So what?

It's like Custer saying forget about the Indians.


----------



## Edward Campbell (30 Sep 2014)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> So what?
> 
> It's like Custer saying forget about the Indians.




Yes, indeed.

Brian Gable has it right in the _Globe and Mail_:





Source: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/summer-fling/article20282346/#dashboard/follows/


----------



## Edward Campbell (6 Oct 2014)

Breaking: the _CBC_ reports that "Quebecor has agreed to sell all 175 English-language newspapers it owns under the _Sun Media_ banner to _Postmedia_, the owner of the _National Post_ ..." This _seems_ to not include the _Sun News_ TV enterprise.

Given that both _Postmedia_ and the _Sun_ papers are, broadly, aligned, politically, this will not make much of a difference on that front. But it might raise some interesting questions about Pierre Karl Pelideau's political intentions.


----------



## Remius (6 Oct 2014)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Breaking: the _CBC_ reports that "Quebecor has agreed to sell all 175 English-language newspapers it owns under the _Sun Media_ banner to _Postmedia_, the owner of the _National Post_ ..." This _seems_ to not include the _Sun News_ TV enterprise.
> 
> Given that both _Postmedia_ and the _Sun_ papers are, broadly, aligned, politically, this will not make much of a difference on that front. But it might raise some interesting questions about Pierre Karl Pelideau's political intentions.



Wow.  That sure came out of left field (or right field as it were)


----------



## The Bread Guy (6 Oct 2014)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> .... This _seems_ to not include the _Sun News_ TV enterprise ....


Correct, at least according to CBC.ca:


> .... Sun Media's Sun News Network television channel is not included as part of the deal ....


----------



## a_majoor (13 Jan 2015)

Journalistic ethics at work. I wonder how the employer will deal with this (apparently) rouge journalist? </snark>

http://canadalandshow.com/article/amanda-lang-tried-sabotage-cbc-story-scandalized-rbc-who-paid-her



> *Amanda Lang tried to sabotage a CBC story that scandalized RBC, who paid her*
> "I cannot emphasize enough how wrong it was," says colleague.
> Sean Craig • January 11, 2015
> 
> ...


----------



## The Bread Guy (17 Feb 2015)

Calling a spade a spade? (highlights mine)


> Prime Minister Stephen Harper says "a lot" of Radio-Canada employees "hate" conservative values.
> 
> Harper says those values that are loathed by many employees of CBC's French-language network are the same ones that he says are supported by a large number of Quebecers.
> 
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (30 Apr 2015)

This, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from _Policy Optioins_, is going to confirm the existing biases of several members here, but I find it interesting on two grounds:

     1. It's use of data; and

     2. It's method ~ which is, _for me_, novel.

_Caveat lector_: Ken Boessenkool was both a _Reform Party_ insioder/operative and a policy advisor to prime Minister Harper; he's hardly unbiased, himself, as he points out near the end of the article..

http://policyoptions.irpp.org/2015/04/30/what-can-a-little-birdie-tell-us-about-the-parliamentary-press-gallery/


> What can a little birdie tell us about the Parliamentary Press Gallery?
> Ken Boessenkool
> 
> Blog post, April 30, 2015
> ...




I have no _opinion_ comments, but there are several hyperlinks in the original which are worth a look and may persuade some of you one way or the other.


----------



## Edward Campbell (9 Jun 2015)

Yes more chicanery in the CBC, this time it's Evan Solomon who has been let go due to breaching the "code of ethics" (loose though it must be).

There are some wonderful people and programmes on CBC: Mary Hynes and Tapestry, Eleanor Wachtel  and Writers and Company and Paul Kennedy and Ideas to name just three, but most of CBC, ALL of CBC TV, is a waste of bandwidth.


----------



## jollyjacktar (9 Jun 2015)

I won't miss him.  I was getting tired of his biased reporting and it's good to see him smacked down.  Especially if he was playing all Mike Duffy with feathering his nest.


----------



## The Bread Guy (14 Jun 2015)

A bit of commentary on the latest CBC staff "changes" ....
_*"Canadian public broadcaster's crisis: 'When you create celebrities, you create monsters' "*_


----------



## Kirkhill (14 Jun 2015)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> A bit of commentary on the latest CBC staff "changes" ....
> _*"Canadian public broadcaster's crisis: 'When you create celebrities, you create monsters' "*_





> Gutted by a conservative government and forced to emphasize ‘host culture’ over content,



 :rofl: :crybaby: :stars: ???

 I feel Harper's pain.  Round our house everything is my fault.


----------



## jollyjacktar (14 Jun 2015)

Yours too, eh?  I think its universal.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (14 Jun 2015)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> A bit of commentary on the latest CBC staff "changes" ....
> _*"Canadian public broadcaster's crisis: 'When you create celebrities, you create monsters' "*_



This is one of the most hypocritial articles I've read in a long while. The CBC has been producing "celebrities" (if we can call them that....) since long before the CPC took over. Don Cherry, Ron McLean, Rick Mercer, Mary Walsh, knowlton Nash, the Air Farce people, Brian Williams, Lloyd Robertson, etc etc etc.

I can see no way that Jian ghomeshi enjoying rough sex/sexual assault (alleged) and Evan Solomon using his position in Ottawa to sell art work can be blamed on cuts to the CBC. The fact is that TV as a whole is personality and celebrity driven, regardless of public vs private network. The popularity of a show/person is what drives celebrity, which in turn drives ratings, which in turns drives salary.

CBC just needs to admit that 2 of its employees made mistakes and move on... begging for more money is shallow and sad.


----------



## jollyjacktar (14 Jun 2015)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> This is one of the most hypocritial articles I've read in a long while. The CBC has been producing "celebrities" (if we can call them that....) since long before the CPC took over. Don Cherry, Ron McLean, Rick Mercer, Mary Walsh, knowlton Nash, the Air Farce people, Brian Williams, Lloyd Robertson, etc etc etc.
> 
> I can see no way that Jian ghomeshi enjoying rough sex/sexual assault (alleged) and Evan Solomon using his position in Ottawa to sell art work can be blamed on cuts to the CBC. The fact is that TV as a whole is personality and celebrity driven, regardless of public vs private network. The popularity of a show/person is what drives celebrity, which in turn drives ratings, which in turns drives salary.
> 
> CBC just needs to admit that 3 of its employees made mistakes and move on... begging for more money is shallow and sad.



FTFY.  Otherwise, pretty much bang on.


----------



## The Bread Guy (14 Jun 2015)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> I can see no way that Jian ghomeshi enjoying rough sex/sexual assault (alleged) and Evan Solomon using his position in Ottawa to sell art work can be blamed on cuts to the CBC.


Or the other way around, for that matter ....


----------



## Pusser (19 Jun 2015)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> I can see no way ... [that] Evan Solomon using his position in Ottawa to sell art work can be blamed on cuts to the CBC.



Unless of course the cuts led to a reduction in salary that meant he needed to sell artwork in order to put food on the table.  Did he take in laundry and boarders as well?


----------



## Edward Campbell (15 Aug 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> The American journalist AJ Liebling said, "Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one."
> 
> It's actually an important principle. The media, the journalists, are nothing special; they have no special role to hold politicians to account and so forth. In fact, another wit, one who did own the presses, quipped that the only role of journalists is to fill up the empty white spaces between the advertisements.
> 
> ...




It's no secret, I hope, that I am not a big fan of the media ~ with a few notable exceptions ~ and that the rise of _infotainment_ and _shouting heads_ (vs the "talking heads" of an earlier generation) actually frightens me because I suspect that 95% of Canadians get 95% of their political/socio-economic _information_, such as it is, from far, far less than credible sources.

It should also be not secret that _I believe_ that we, Canadians, are heavily influenced by American _social_ trends and our media tends to follow the US model slavishly ~ when, for example, CNN started have news anchors stand up the mindless, witless CBC followed suit, blindly. Why? No one knows ... but if the big boys are doing it then it must be right, right? I don't blame Stephen Harper for making Canada more _conservative_. In _my considered opinion_ America became more _conservative_, for a whole variety of (not very good) reasons and Canada, being Canada, saw and followed ... for equally not very good reasons. All Stephen Harper did was recognized the direction in which the mob was headed and, as Ralph Klein advised, he jumped out in front and led it.

This article, which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_ is about Donald Trump and the US media, but we can already see some of the same things in Canada, including Stephen Harper's disdain for the parliamentary press gallery and his equal disdain  for hard facts when analogies better suit his purpose:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/arts/books-and-media/donald-trumps-candidacy-is-a-case-study-in-the-anxious-state-of-contemporary-media/article25964895/


> Donald Trump’s candidacy is a case study in the anxious state of contemporary media
> 
> SIMON HOUPT
> The Globe and Mail
> ...



Now I don't care about Donald Trump, I wouldn't even care much if he became POTUS ~ he couldn't be that much worse than either Hillary Clinton or Rick Perry, could he? But I do care about what Simon Houpt appears to fear: a media that is unable to define itself thanks to being unable to answer "hard questions: about clickbait versus quality journalism, and whether the two are mutually exclusive; about bias and fairness; about polls; about outrage journalism; about the little-examined role that class plays in media; about journalistic integrity; about whether the media – even the media outlets that position themselves as the true voices of real people – are actually in touch with real people." 

Some journalists, and I don't mind naming e.g. reporters like David Akin and Mercedes Stephenson and commentators/analysis like John Ibbitson have real "points of view" on issues but they try to present honest appraisals of the situation, even then they must report or comment on things with they (seem to) disagree. But too many journalists and too many media outlets, as Simon Houpt says, "have tried to inoculate themselves by making their biases part of the coverage."

The media, including individual journalists, have an important _political_ role: they gather and sort _information_ that we need to have and then they present it to us in, we hope, a useful and accurate form so that can make our own judgments about who we want to represent us in parliament and in the world. Buffoons like Donald Trump make the media less able to be responsible; politicians like Trump encourage journalists to include their biases in their reporting ~ and some (too many) don't need much encouraging. I am persuaded that this phenomenon will continue to spread in Canada, too. But: don't blame Stephen Harper and don't even blame the media ~ look in the mirror, it is we who copy the Americans, no one forces American culture on to us.


----------



## Brad Sallows (15 Aug 2015)

>The media, including individual journalists, have an important political role: they gather and sort information that we need to have and then they present it to us in, we hope, a useful and accurate form so that can make our own judgments

The "media" can have that role*, but many today choose not to because big prizes - presidencies and prime ministerships for a journalists's preferred faction - are at stake.  I stopped accepting "editorial policy" as an excuse for spiking unhelpful evidence while promulgating misleading misinformation years ago, which is why I despise most media today.  There is more honesty and insight in the informal media today, if you have the wit and will to find it.

*"Explanatory" journalism pamphleteering not included.


----------



## Jed (15 Aug 2015)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >The media, including individual journalists, have an important political role: they gather and sort information that we need to have and then they present it to us in, we hope, a useful and accurate form so that can make our own judgments
> 
> The "media" can have that role*, but many today choose not to because big prizes - presidencies and prime ministerships for a journalists's preferred faction - are at stake.  I stopped accepting "editorial policy" as an excuse for spiking unhelpful evidence while promulgating misleading misinformation years ago, which is why I despise most media today.  There is more honesty and insight in the informal media today, if you have the wit and will to find it.
> 
> *"Explanatory" journalism pamphleteering not included.



Exactly


----------



## ModlrMike (15 Aug 2015)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >The media, including individual journalists, have an important political role: they gather and sort information that we need to have and then they present it to us in, we hope, a useful and accurate form so that can make our own judgments
> 
> The "media" can have that role*, but many today choose not to because big prizes - presidencies and prime ministerships for a journalists's preferred faction - are at stake.  I stopped accepting "editorial policy" as an excuse for spiking unhelpful evidence while promulgating misleading misinformation years ago, which is why I despise most media today.  There is more honesty and insight in the informal media today, *if you have the wit and will to find it*.
> 
> *"Explanatory" journalism pamphleteering not included.



As I've said before, the public is by and large stupid, lazy, and greedy. The legacy media counts on the first two, politicians on all three.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (15 Aug 2015)

I know it's The Rebel and Ezra Levant, but knowing unions and their tactics, he may be onto something.

http://www.therebel.media/_shocking_journalists_union_is_registered

Related Article: http://metanoodle.blogspot.ca/2015/08/the-journalists-reporting-on-our.html



> August 14, 2015
> 
> "SHOCKING": Journalists' union is registered to campaign in the federal election
> 
> ...


----------



## Acorn (15 Aug 2015)

Look to the British press if you want to see where it ends up. Every news outlet has a definable political stance. There is no neutral.


----------



## ModlrMike (15 Aug 2015)

Acorn said:
			
		

> Look to the British press if you want to see where it ends up. Every news outlet has a definable political stance. There is no neutral.



I think we could live with that. It's the pretense of impartiality that gets me.


----------



## Edward Campbell (15 Aug 2015)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> I think we could live with that. It's the pretense of impartiality that gets me.




 :ditto:  I expect the media to be somewhat biased. Journalists are (ought to be) smart people; smart people are (ought to be) opinionated; smart, honest people can report the facts and still let their opinions shine through in an appropriate manner.

I do not agree that the _role_ of the media is to "comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable," as some journalists seem to believe, any more than I agree that all journalists do is "fill up the white spaces between the ads," as some media moguls think. I think journalists ought to have opinions but they ought to know how and when and where to express them without distorting the information they are presenting to an interested public.


----------



## Edward Campbell (20 Aug 2015)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> As it should be.  I find it offensive that organizations and unions have become so politically vocal in their attempts to influence which way people vote.  The Ontario Election was really a shyte show in my opinion, with all the partisan politics being played out by the Civil Servants, the OPP, Teachers and other such organizations.  I don't agree with that type of tactics.  These Veterans groups are no different.  Leave the 'politicking' to the political Parties.  Leave the voting to the individuals.




On this topic, _Unifor_, a trade union representing 2,600 journalists and other media workers at 35 media outlets including the _Toronto Sun_, _Toronto Star_ and _Globe and Mail_, was part of the 2014 Ontario Election, campaigning, actively, against Tim Hudak as Lorrie Goldstein Explains in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Toronto Sun_:

http://www.torontosun.com/2015/08/19/why-voters-distrust-the-media-party


> Why voters distrust the media party
> 
> BY LORRIE GOLDSTEIN, TORONTO SUN
> 
> ...




Following that same meme, Jeffrey Simpson, discusses Stephen Harper's "war on the media," without ever once mentioning the unions which represent the media in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Glkobe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/how-the-tories-war-on-media-fills-party-coffers/article26023945/


> How the Tories’ ‘war on the media’ fills party coffers
> 
> JEFFREY SIMPSON
> The Globe and Mail
> ...




I know I'm repeating myself, but, _I expect_ the media to be biased. Journalists are, by and large, smart, well educated people who are in the _infotainment_ industry and they would not be human if they didn'r have biases. Owners and publishers of newspapers are supposed to have biases, in some cases (e.g. the _Toronto Star_ with its (in)famous Atkinson Principles, which, long after the author's death, still guide that newspaper today and make it a reliable Liberal (and _liberal_) organ) the bias is formal, even _institutionalized_. _I hope_ that journalists will confine their biases to _opinion_ pieces and try to report _hard_ political news in a straight forward, factual basis... my hopes are, more often than not, unfulfilled.

I expect to see Jeffrey Simpson, who takes _journalism_, and himself, very seriously ~ far more seriously than I think is necessary ~ mount an implicit defence of the media against CPC attacks, but, equally, I am heartened to read Lorrie Goldstein's article which acknowledges that the media is anything but the paragon Mr Simpson imagines.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (20 Aug 2015)

On the topic of media, I would contest that the media campaign occuring on facebook, twitter, etc, while overlooked, is a cheap and extremely effective way of reaching the younger votes and getting a message across.

Pictures like the one attached have circulated widely on facebook recently and certainly help to paint the "Harper is anti-Canadian" narrative popular with the liberals and conservatives. To be honest, I would suspect that with voters leaning liberal or NDP a social media campaign is likely to be more successful (and print/TV at conservative leaning voters). The traditional print and TV medias are becoming more and more marginalized by the day, and are also likely to lash out against the government as a convenient scapegoat for their declining readership and relevance.


----------



## Brad Sallows (20 Aug 2015)

Simpson will not allow himself to see the problem, so he will not see the problem.

To propose that the behaviour of "the media" may be excused by comparing it to that of any other organization or agency is to concede that "the media" should no longer be thought of as professional.

A profession exists to serve a public good.  The public good the media exists to serve as a profession is to inform the public - not to shape opinion, but to inform it.  If the media are no longer an objectively-minded* profession serving a public good, they no longer deserve or need any protections or privileges greater than the pajama army.

Every time a journalist caves to the temptation to put his biases in play in print, he tears a little bit more away from any attempt to rebuild his occupation as a profession.  Politics is simply the realm where the temptation is greatest.

*"Your denial of the importance of objectivity amounts to announcing your intention to lie to us. No-one should believe anything you say." - John McCarthy.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (20 Aug 2015)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> On the topic of media, I would contest that the media campaign occuring on facebook, twitter, etc, while overlooked, is a cheap and extremely effective way of reaching the younger votes and getting a message across.
> 
> Pictures like the one attached have circulated widely on facebook recently and certainly help to paint the "Harper is anti-Canadian" narrative popular with the liberals and conservatives. To be honest, I would suspect that with voters leaning liberal or NDP a social media campaign is likely to be more successful (and print/TV at conservative leaning voters). The traditional print and TV medias are becoming more and more marginalized by the day, and are also likely to lash out against the government as a convenient scapegoat for their declining readership and relevance.



The funny thing is that if you look at the uniform of the soldier walking with the kids, you realize he 's not even a Canadian soldier.


----------



## Remius (20 Aug 2015)

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> The funny thing is that if you look at the uniform of the soldier walking with the kids, you realize he 's not even a Canadian soldier.



Maybe that was the point


----------



## Lumber (20 Aug 2015)

Crantor said:
			
		

> Maybe that was the point



....

mind BLOWN.

 :gloomy:


----------



## Old Sweat (20 Aug 2015)

I am not sure that the claim is true. (If in doubt, make up some statistics.) It is irrelevant anyways as the situation has changed dramatically from the Pearson era.


----------



## Good2Golf (21 Aug 2015)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> On the topic of media, I would contest that the media campaign occuring on facebook, twitter, etc, while overlooked, is a cheap and extremely effective way of reaching the younger votes and getting a message across.
> 
> Pictures like the one attached have circulated widely on facebook recently and certainly help to paint the "Harper is anti-Canadian" narrative popular with the liberals and conservatives. To be honest, I would suspect that with voters leaning liberal or NDP a social media campaign is likely to be more successful (and print/TV at conservative leaning voters). The traditional print and TV medias are becoming more and more marginalized by the day, and are also likely to lash out against the government as a convenient scapegoat for their declining readership and relevance.




Sadly, those who spew tripe like that picture are hoping that others don't actually fact check the figures or seek the truth.

Let's take a moment to check the UN Peacekeeping Statistics from a reputable source, like...oh, I don't know...let's go out on a limb and consider using the UN Peacekeeping Statistics archive site: http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/resources/statistics/contributors_archive.shtml

And let's look at a period from, let's say, 1990 to 2015 and see if the people who fabricated that photo (either 'accidentally' or deceitfully) were even close to any shred of truth in their efforts to demonize Stephen Harper compared to Paul Martin, or Jean Chretien or even Brian Mulroney:


2015 - #1 Bangladesh 9398,  #68 Canada 112
2014 - #1 Bangladesh 9400,  #68 Canada 113
2013 - #1 Pakistan 8266,  #61 Canada 115
2012 - #1 Pakistan 8967,  #55 Canada 150
2011 - #1 Bangladesh 10394,  #54 Canada 190
2010 - #1 Pakistan 10652,  #53 Canada 198
2009 - #1 Pakistan 10764,  #56 Canada 170
2008 - #1 Pakistan 11135,  #49 Canada 179
2007 - #1 Pakistan 10610,  #58 Canada 149
2006 - #1 Pakistan 9867,    #69 Canada 132

2005 - #1 Bangladesh 9529,  #32 Canada 387
2004 - #1 Pakistan 8140,  #34 Canada 314

2003 - #1 Pakistan 6248,  #38 Canada 233 (note: now invading Iraq and USA is still #22 at 518)
2002 - #1 Pakistan 4677,  #31 Canada 263 (note: still doing the 9/11 thing, USA was #19 at 631)
2001 - #1 Bangladesh 6010,  #32 Canada 295 (note: even doing the 9/11 thing, USA was #18 at 750)
2000 - #1 Nigeria 3523,  #25 Canada 568 (note: 'Big Satan'/USA was #14 at 885)
1999 - #1 Poland 1039,  #15 Canada 291 (note: 'Big Satan'/USA was #10 at 619)
1998 - #1 Poland 1053,  #17 Canada 265 (note: 'Big Satan'/USA was #8 at 681)
1997 - #1 Poland 1084,  #19 Canada 254 (note: 'Big Satan'/USA was #10 at 644)
1996 - #1 WTF?!? USA...really???  ??? Yup...2449,  #11 Canada 956
1995 - #1 Pakistan 8795,  #6 Canada 2585
1994 - #1 Pakistan 9110,  #7 Canada 2811
1993 - #1 France 6370,  #7 Canada 2808

1992 - #1 France 6502,  #3 Canada 3285

1991 - #1 Finland 1006, #2 Canada 971
1990 - #1 Canada 1002 (the last time Canada was ever the #1 contributor)


So...the graphic should actually show "Lyin' Brian" as the last PM to have been the #1 contributor to UN Peacekeeping.  Five years later, 'Ptit gars from Shawinigan had busted Canada double digits down the list as USA soared like an eagle to #1.  For the rest of Chrétien's tenure, Canada was always behind the USA, usually less than half the peacekeepers provided from south of the border.  Paul Martin takes over from Chrétien and starts to work things back up, almost doubling the peacekeepers that Chrétien left behind.  Stephen Harper took over and Canada ramped up capability in AFG and about halved its peacekeepers from Martin's days.

So, to summarize...

- Canada was #1 under Mulroney
- Chrétien let Canada slide from #3 to #38...nicely done, dude from same party as "Peacekeeping Pearson." :slow clap:
- Martin reversed Chrétien's slide and raised Canada from #38 to #32, even as we were ramping up in AFG.
- Harper let peacekeeping slide from #32 to #68 and 275 less peacekeepers than in Martin's last year.

i.e.  That photo/meme is pure BS.  Those sheeple who pass that kind of patently mal-informed stuff on without critically thinking for themselves should at least be a little embarrassed...

 :2c:

G2G


----------



## Remius (21 Aug 2015)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Sadly, those who spew tripe like that picture are hoping that others don't actually fact check the figures or seek the truth.
> 
> i.e.  That photo/meme is pure BS.  Those sheeple who pass that kind of patently mal-informed stuff on without critically thinking for themselves should at least be a little embarrassed...
> 
> G2G



So this is your first day on the interweb?   ;D

Social media is full of BS.  From free disney cruises, fake amber alerts, Obama b-cert conspiracies to, yes, fake feel good soldier stories.  I doubt anyone passing this stuff feel any embarassment at all given how people don't feel there are consequences to their actions.   And in elections it ramps up on all sides. 

I love SNOPES, exactly because it debunks a lot of that crap.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (21 Aug 2015)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Sadly, those who spew tripe like that picture are hoping that others don't actually fact check the figures or seek the truth.
> 
> Let's take a moment to check the UN Peacekeeping Statistics from a reputable source, like...oh, I don't know...let's go out on a limb and consider using the UN Peacekeeping Statistics archive site: http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/resources/statistics/contributors_archive.shtml
> 
> ...



I agree with you that the meme is 100% BS, but in terms of "media" its great because it works with the sheeple's views that Harper is the great devil. Social media, for all it's benefits, is a machine that can create immense rage and interest within moments... look at the Lion thing of a couple weeks ago. 2 weeks ago people were willing to tell a dentist they'd never met in a place they'd never been that he should rot in hell, die, etc because he had (potentially unknowingly) shot a lion that no one in North America knew existed.

For politicians and parties, the power of "outrage" that the internet seems to be able to produce is endless. A properly timed outrage campaign on social media before the election with all of its glory could swing undecided young voters at the right time as the ability to "fact check" is dubious.


----------



## Good2Golf (21 Aug 2015)

Crantor said:
			
		

> So this is your first day on the interweb?   ;D



Second day actually, I now know how to haz cheesburgers and who Leeroy Jenkins is...but I did know that some people were sheeple well before the interwebs was invented by Al Gore...  ;D


----------



## Halifax Tar (21 Aug 2015)

FYI I stole this graphic and your research on my FB.  My ardent liberal friends are less than impressed 

Thank you G2G 



			
				Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Sadly, those who spew tripe like that picture are hoping that others don't actually fact check the figures or seek the truth.
> 
> Let's take a moment to check the UN Peacekeeping Statistics from a reputable source, like...oh, I don't know...let's go out on a limb and consider using the UN Peacekeeping Statistics archive site: http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/resources/statistics/contributors_archive.shtml
> 
> ...


----------



## Acorn (21 Aug 2015)

I'm surprised anyone in this day and age thought Peacekeeping should be an election issue. This gov't can be raked over the coals for so many other military issues (like procurement), it seems odd to drag us back to the days of a UN "White Man's Burden."


----------



## Old Sweat (21 Aug 2015)

Acorn said:
			
		

> I'm surprised anyone in this day and age thought Peacekeeping should be an election issue. This gov't can be raked over the coals for so many other military issues (like procurement), it seems odd to drag us back to the days of a UN "White Man's Burden."



A few months ago I had a gentleman who is part of the Parliamentary Bureau for one of our major networks, but not an on air personality bend my ear for several minutes about the many failings of the PM. He finished his well practiced tirade by saying he changed us from a peacekeeping nation to a militarized nation.


----------



## Edward Campbell (21 Aug 2015)

Acorn said:
			
		

> I'm surprised anyone in this day and age thought Peacekeeping should be an election issue. This gov't can be raked over the coals for so many other military issues (like procurement), it seems odd to drag us back to the days of a UN "White Man's Burden."




I think references to _peacekeeping_, especially to the baby-blue beret notion of it ... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 ... are very popular.

Successive Canadian government, especially in the late 1960s and throughout the 1970s, aided by a sympathetic (and compliant) media made much of the whole blue beret thing ~ the notion, as Andrew Cohen put it, fully 10 years ago, of: _"This great delusion -- soldiers as boy scouts and do-gooders -- has taken root in the Canadian psyche. We have fallen in love with the idea of Canada as peacekeeper. It has become a cherished part of our iconography, celebrated on the $10 bill and in that imposing granite monument on Sussex Drive in Ottawa."_ That notion is still very, very popular in, especially, Liberal and NDP circles. Remember this: _"We will always be there, like the Boy Scouts"_? That was Jean Chrétien ... he wasn't trying to insult the Canadian Forces, he was just telling the truth, as he understood it (probably very correctly), about what Canadians want from their military. _I believe_ that many (maybe even most) Canadians still want that and they are the voters over whom the Liberals and NDP are fighting.


----------



## Good2Golf (21 Aug 2015)

HT, de nada!  

No one should get me wrong, I am in no way trying to apologize for Mr. Harper and how he does things, many of which do not at all align with how I would wish to see things done.  I'm more of a Joe Clark, Paul Martin, John Manley kind of guy, but seeing blatantly untrue things thrown out there are irritating at best, and deserve time and effort of others to rebut...  :nod:

Regards
G2G


----------



## Halifax Tar (21 Aug 2015)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> HT, de nada!
> 
> No one should get me wrong, I am in no way trying to apologize for Mr. Harper and how he does things, many of which do not at all align with how I would wish to see things done.  I'm more of a Joe Clark, Paul Martin, John Manley kind of guy, but seeing blatantly untrue things thrown out there are irritating at best, and deserve time and effort of others to rebut...  :nod:
> 
> ...



The funniest thing is happening.  People are sharing the graphic without having read your words and continuing to buy into its fallacy.  It's amazing, it's errors are right there in black and white, and disproven, and they choose not to read it.  I now fully buy into the theory of sheeple.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (21 Aug 2015)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> The funniest thing is happening.  People are sharing the graphic without having read your words and continuing to buy into its fallacy.  It's amazing, it's errors are right there in black and white, and disproven, and they choose not to read it.  I now fully buy into the theory of sheeple.



HT- exactly. That's why I truly believe that social media, vice traditional print and TV media, is the best way to gain the quick and easy votes near an election to win. It's easy for people to see something on facebook, put in comments, "I can't believe this is happening!", and than share it. Fact checking and being informed is hard. Social media is great at whipping up moral indignation... a well timed "moral indignation" point just before an election could mroe readily swing votes than TV or print can IMHO.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (21 Aug 2015)

FWIW, i think that you will find that Bosnia and Kosovo are not counted, as they were NATO missions.


----------



## Good2Golf (21 Aug 2015)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> FWIW, i think that you will find that Bosnia and Kosovo are not counted, as they were NATO missions.



Heretic!  Those were peace_*making*_ and R2P missions...  :nod:


----------



## George Wallace (21 Aug 2015)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Heretic!  Those were peace_*making*_ and R2P missions...  :nod:



For which you were entitled to the Canadian Peacekeeping Service Medal (CPSM).


----------



## The Bread Guy (22 Aug 2015)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Sadly, those who spew tripe like that picture are hoping that others don't actually fact check the figures or seek the truth.
> 
> Let's take a moment to check the UN Peacekeeping Statistics from a reputable source, like...oh, I don't know...let's go out on a limb and consider using the UN Peacekeeping Statistics archive site: http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/resources/statistics/contributors_archive.shtml
> 
> ...


You da MAN - thanks for the digging/sharing.


----------



## Good2Golf (22 Aug 2015)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> You da MAN - thanks for the digging/sharing.



Milnews.ca, you're indeed welcome, but if by 'digging' you mean, "clicking on a few links on the official UN website and typing a bit," it wasn't that hard...the data was all there readily accessible to the entire public...well, the public that doesn't have a closed mind and is willing to investigate even a little...unless of course their mission is to deliberately deceive.  :nod:

Cheers,
G2G


----------



## PuckChaser (22 Aug 2015)

Fantastic data diving, milpoints inbound.


----------



## The Bread Guy (22 Aug 2015)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> ...well, the public that doesn't have a closed mind and is willing to investigate even a little...unless of course their mission is to deliberately deceive.  :nod:
> 
> Cheers,
> G2G


Dare to dream .... milpoints inbound (once I figure out why I can't award any).


----------



## MarkOttawa (23 Aug 2015)

Keep in mind that the CF's big peacekeeping contribution during the first half of the 1990s was to UNPROFOR in former Yugo; in 1995 and on into mid-2000s that simply morphed in NATO missions in B-H, Macedonia involving significant number of "peacekeeping" ("peace enforcement"?) personnel: IFOR, SFOR, KFOR:

1) http://www.veterans.gc.ca/eng/remembrance/history/canadian-armed-forces/balkans

2) http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/news/article.page?doc=canadian-forces-operations-in-bosnia-herzegovina/hnps1u07

3) http://www.cmp-cpm.forces.gc.ca/dhh-dhp/od-bdo/di-ri-eng.asp?IntlOpId=96&CdnOpId=110

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## George Wallace (23 Aug 2015)

How soon we sweep Somalia under the rug.   >


----------



## Kirkhill (23 Aug 2015)

Forgot a couple Mark  (you beat me to it George)

http://www.veterans.gc.ca/eng/remembrance/history/canadian-armed-forces/somalia

http://www.veterans.gc.ca/eng/remembrance/history/canadian-armed-forces/rwanda

So:

In 1991, under the UN Mulroney sends Canada into Yugo. 

In 1992, under the UN Mulroney sends Canada into Somalia.

In 1993, under the UN Mulroney sends Canada into Rwanda

In 1993 the Medak Pocket (doesn't) happen and Shidane Arone is killed and Chretien becomes PM

In 1994 Rwandan massacres occur

In 1995 Chretien decides to pack up and go home and disbands the Canadian Airborne Regiment in disgrace while sucking back from Yugo, Rwanda and Somalia and anything that looked like them.




In 1999 under the UN Chretien goes to East Timor

In 2001 Chretien goes to Afghanistan under the UN and with NATO (UN authorized but not commanded) 

In 2003 Chretien is retired and Martin continues in Afghanistan

In 2005 Martin shifts Canada to Kandahar

In 2006 Harper becomes PM

In 2011 Harper withdraws from Kandahar

In 2014 Harper withdraws from Afghanistan


----------



## MarkOttawa (24 Aug 2015)

Kirkhill,

East Timor: "UN-authorized, Australian-led multinational force", i.e, not "UN peacekeeping" as such:
http://www.veterans.gc.ca/eng/remembrance/history/canadian-armed-forces/easttimor

Then there was Eritrea, "real" UN peacekeeping, six months 2001-2:
http://www.veterans.gc.ca/eng/remembrance/history/canadian-armed-forces/ethiopia

Those do fall within the post-1995 period I was considering.  By the way NATO did not take over ISAF until 2003:
http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_69366.htm

And our six-month 2002 regular forces Kandahar mission was only loosely, not specifically, UNSC-authorized--"Following the terrorist attacks on the United States on 11 September 2001, the United Nations Security Council adopted Resolution 1368 condemning the attacks and supporting international efforts to root out terrorism in Afghanistan."
http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/operations-abroad-past/cafla.page

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Kirkhill (24 Aug 2015)

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Kirkhill,
> 
> East Timor: "UN-authorized, Australian-led multinational force", i.e, not "UN peacekeeping" as such:
> http://www.veterans.gc.ca/eng/remembrance/history/canadian-armed-forces/easttimor
> ...



Fair comment.  

However all of the missions were fig-leafed by the UN - ultimately they were stability operations designed to maintain or reinstate the status quo ante.


----------



## MarkOttawa (24 Aug 2015)

Kirkhill: Quite, but keep in mind that the complainers are bemoaning the large decline in Canada's contributions to _UN-run operations_, which for them ideologically are the only ones that count.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Good2Golf (24 Aug 2015)

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Kirkhill: Quite, but keep in mind that the complainers are bemoaning the large decline in Canada's contributions to _UN-run operations_, which for them ideologically are the only ones that count.



 :nod:

Yup, the UN missions seem to have to be of the blue ball-cap wearing, handing out candies and caring for babies type missions.  UNSC resolution-approved isn't warm and fuzzy enough, it would seem.


----------



## Kirkhill (24 Aug 2015)

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Kirkhill: Quite, but keep in mind that the complainers are bemoaning the large decline in Canada's contributions to _UN-run operations_, which for them ideologically are the only ones that count.
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



Point taken

So - that seems to suggest that the Highwater mark was reached under Mulroney and that Chretien turned Canada isolationist.


----------



## Good2Golf (24 Aug 2015)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> So - that seems to suggest that the Highwater mark was reached under Mulroney and that Chretien turned Canada isolationist.



   :nod:

Ironic, isn't it?  (and not in an Alanis Morissette kind of way... ;D )


----------



## MarkOttawa (24 Aug 2015)

Kirkhill: Thee hee--but not "isolationist", rather "militarist" ,

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Kirkhill (24 Aug 2015)

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Kirkhill: Thee hee--but not "isolationist", rather "militarist" ,
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



I think, rather, JC was 'isolationist".  It took Paul Martin to create a "militarist" Canada.


----------



## MarkOttawa (24 Aug 2015)

Kirkhill: Just putting things as those who decry lack of UN peacekeeping should do if had any intellectual consistency (bombing Kosovo/Serbia with NATO and no UNSC mandate, _quelle horreur_!)--JC abandoned UN for, gasp, NATO!  And then PM Martin took us into, gasp. combat (though JC did that briefly in 2002 though not much action).

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Kirkhill (24 Aug 2015)

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Kirkhill: Just putting things as those who decry lack of UN peacekeeping should do if had any intellectual consistency (bombing Kosovo/Serbia with NATO and no UNSC mandate, _quelle horreur_!)--JC abandoned UN for, gasp, NATO!  And then PM Martin took us into, gasp. combat (though JC did that briefly in 2002 though not much action).
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



Seen.


----------



## Edward Campbell (1 Oct 2015)

David Akin, in a column in the _Toronto Sun_ which is reproduced here under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act, excoriates the CBC for not broadcasting leaders' debates not _hosted_ by the so-called _consortium_:

http://www.torontosun.com/2015/09/30/shame-on-cbc-brass-for-debate-failures


> Shame on CBC brass for debate failures
> 
> BY DAVID AKIN, PARLIAMENTARY BUREAU CHIEF
> 
> ...




I agree with Mr Akin.


----------



## Remius (1 Oct 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> David Akin, in a column in the _Toronto Sun_ which is reproduced here under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act, excoriates the CBC for not broadcasting leaders' debates not _hosted_ by the so-called _consortium_:
> 
> http://www.torontosun.com/2015/09/30/shame-on-cbc-brass-for-debate-failures
> 
> I agree with Mr Akin.



Did any of the big three actually broadcast it?


----------



## Rifleman62 (2 Oct 2015)

From SDA's:

http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/

Spin cycling

Marco Dube, the interim VP for Strategy & Public affairs at the CBC Radio Canada, explains the CBC's decision to not broadcast the Munk Debate:

    We don't broadcast content, like a debate, over which we have no editorial bias input. We do news coverage, though.

Parse that one at length if you will.


----------



## Brad Sallows (2 Oct 2015)

Weak excuse.  If the public broadcaster, on the public's dime, is not there to inform the public irrespective of the broadcaster's preferred criteria, then the public dime should be removed and the broadcaster should become private.


----------



## Rifleman62 (7 Oct 2015)

Some examples of current media bias:

https://bcblue.wordpress.com/

 - Video: CBC’s Mary Walsh calls PM Stephen Harper “Stasi Steve” and “Herr Harper”

- Trudeau confirms Liberals would start spying on Canadians, Media Party go silent


----------



## Fishbone Jones (7 Oct 2015)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Some examples of current media bias:
> 
> https://bcblue.wordpress.com/
> 
> ...



First the Union uses my dues to support groups I'm against and now the CBC is using my tax dollars to shill for politicians I don't want.

Time to burn the place down.


----------



## cavalryman (7 Oct 2015)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Some examples of current media bias:
> 
> https://bcblue.wordpress.com/
> 
> ...



Mary Walsh has always struck me as a talentless leftie imbued with HDS.  No loss there.  Nothing I've seen of her over the years has convinced me she was even remotely funny, let alone interesting.  The only ones paying attention to her are the silver spoon socialist "bien pensants" who signed the Leap Manifesto


----------



## George Wallace (8 Oct 2015)

Interesting revelations by Brian Lilley:

CBC Exposed


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (8 Oct 2015)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Some examples of current media bias:
> 
> https://bcblue.wordpress.com/
> 
> ...



Seems to me that the CBC is now a third party advertiser under the Elections Act. Since they dress themselves to one specific candidates, the spending limit is $3,000 in his riding. How much does two minutes on the CBC costs?

A complaint to the Chief Electoral Officer should be filed, IMHO.

Elections Act relevant extracts:
PART 17
THIRD PARTY ELECTION ADVERTISING

Marginal noteefinitions

349. The definitions in this section apply in this Part.
“election advertising”
« publicité électorale »
“election advertising” has the same meaning as in section 319.

“election advertising expense”
« dépenses de publicité électorale »
“election advertising expense” means an expense incurred in relation to

(a) the production of an election advertising message; and
(b) the acquisition of the means of transmission to the public of an election advertising message.
“expenses”
« dépenses »
“expenses” means

(a) amounts paid;
(b) liabilities incurred;
(c) the commercial value of property and services, other than volunteer labour, that are donated or provided; and
(d) amounts that represent the difference between an amount paid or a liability incurred for property and services, other than volunteer labour, and the commercial value of the property and services, when they are provided at less than their commercial value.
“group”
« groupe »
“group” means an unincorporated trade union, trade association or other group of persons acting together by mutual consent for a common purpose.

“third party”
« tiers »
“third party” means a person or a group, other than a candidate, registered party or electoral district association of a registered party.

Marginal note:Spending limit

350. (1) Subject to section 351.1, a third party shall not incur election advertising expenses of a total amount of more than $150,000 in relation to a general election.
Marginal note:Spending limit — electoral district

(2) Not more than $3,000 of the total amount referred to in subsection (1) shall be incurred to promote or oppose the election of one or more candidates in a given electoral district, including by
(a) naming them;
(b) showing their likenesses;
(c) identifying them by their respective political affiliations; or
(d) taking a position on an issue with which they are particularly associated.
Marginal note:Expenses re party leader

(3) The limit set out in subsection (2) only applies to an amount incurred with respect to a leader of a registered party or eligible party to the extent that it is incurred to promote or oppose his or her election in a given electoral district.
Marginal note:Spending limit — by-election

(4) Subject to section 351.1, a third party shall not incur election advertising expenses of a total amount of more than $3,000 in a given electoral district in relation to a by-election.
Marginal note:Uncancellable spending

(4.1) If a general election is held on a date other than one set out in subsection 56.1(2) or section 56.2, or if a by-election is held, a third party does not incur an election advertising expense if, on the issue of the writ or writs, it is not able to cancel the transmission of that advertising.
Marginal note:Third party inflation adjustment factor

(5) The amounts referred to in subsections (1), (2) and (4) shall be multiplied by the inflation adjustment factor referred to in section 384 that is in effect on the issue of the writ or writs.
Marginal note:Election period longer than 37 days

(6) If an election period is longer than 37 days, then the amounts referred to in subsections (1), (2) and (4) are increased by adding to them the product of
(a) one thirty-seventh of the amount referred to in subsection (1), (2) or (4), as the case may be, and
(b) the number of days in the election period minus 37.
2000, c. 9, s. 350; 2014, c. 12, s. 78.
Previous Version


----------



## Edward Campbell (18 Oct 2015)

Bruce Anderson, Chairman of _ABACUS DATA_, and a long time political insider, touches on Six key things that will decide the federal election in an article in the _Globe and Mail_. One thing he discusses is debates:

    "No consortium debate. Stephen Harper’s best moments in this campaign were when he was on stage debating the other leaders. His command of complex issues was impressive, his demeanour was cool. These were moments when
     he had a chance to make a pitch to uncertain voters he would never meet on the campaign trail. If his image has been a drawback, his cause would have been better served by showing him at his best in front of the much larger
     audience that the major TV networks could have provided. A poor choice, possibly made for emotional (Sun TV vs. Media Party thinking), rather than rational reasons."

The problem was _not_ the debates, the problem was that the CBC, our so called national broadcaster, in a fit of wholly irresponsible pique, decided to ignore its legal mandate and refused to televise the debates even though they were made freely available. It was disgraceful conduct and any responsible prime minister will fire Hubert Lacroix and Peter Mansbridge, _et al_, for cause, and begin the dismantling of the CBC _TV_ Network. It has, clearly, displayed its complete lack of worth to this country and its contempt for its citizens.


----------



## Scott (18 Oct 2015)

How much you wanna bet Shiny Pony ups their funding?


----------



## PuckChaser (18 Oct 2015)

Scott said:
			
		

> How much you wanna bet Shiny Pony ups their funding?



He's already said he would, but that'd have to go through a budget.


----------



## Edward Campbell (19 Oct 2015)

Other media is reporting and Andrew Coyne, himself, has confirmed (on Twitter) that he has resigned as Editorial Page and Comment editor of the _National Post_ but will continue as a columnist.

The "story" appears to be that the _Postmedia_ "empire's" editorial decison to support Prime Minister Harper and the Conservatives was made by Paul Godfrey, the President and CEO of _Postmedia_. It is, traditionally, the owner/publisher's _right_ to endorse the candidate or party (s)he chooses ~ as the old saying goes, "freedom of the press belongs to those who own  the presses." Now that's all well and good but, sometimes (normally?) while the editorial board of a paper gets behind the owner-publisher's choice, individual columnists can endorse who they wish.

It appears than Andrew Coyne wrote a column that endorsed someone other than Prime Minister Harper and the CPC, or, perhaps, was half-hearted or qualified in his endorsement. In any event his column was pulled by management and he has quit his editorial level job.


----------



## Scott (19 Oct 2015)

Want to give "new" media a try? Hit up Jesse Brown and Canadaland. He puts screws to everyone.


----------



## Jed (19 Oct 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Other media is reporting and Andrew Coyne, himself, has confirmed (on Twitter) that he has resigned as Editorial Page and Comment editor of the _National Post_ but will continue as a columnist.
> 
> The "story" appears to be that the _Postmedia_ "empire's" editorial decison to support Prime Minister Harper and the Conservatives was made by Paul Godfrey, the President and CEO of _Postmedia_. It is, traditionally, the owner/publisher's _right_ to endorse the candidate or party (s)he chooses ~ as the old saying goes, "freedom of the press belongs to those who own  the presses." Now that's all well and good but, sometimes (normally?) while the editorial board of a paper gets behind the owner-publisher's choice, individual columnists can endorse who they wish.
> 
> It appears than Andrew Coyne wrote a column that endorsed someone other than Prime Minister Harper and the CPC, or, perhaps, was half-hearted or qualified in his endorsement. In any event his column was pulled by management and he has quit his editorial level job.



From his articles and appearances in the media, it has been pretty apparent his personal lean has been away from the CPC for at least a year.


----------



## Kirkhill (19 Oct 2015)

My sense of Coyne is that he has been disappointed in the Conservatives in general and Harper in particular, for not being sufficiently libertarian. 

As to the freedom of the columnist - The owner also gets to vote on whether the columnist gets a cheque.

Any number of columnists have bounced from pillar to post seeking the privilege of publishing what they want and not what the boss wants.


----------



## Brad Sallows (19 Oct 2015)

>My sense of Coyne is that he has been disappointed in the Conservatives in general and Harper in particular, for not being sufficiently libertarian.

Yes.  I used to routinely read a lot of his stuff, and it was easy to follow his disaffection as Harper proved to be insufficiently pure and too pragmatic.


----------



## Edward Campbell (21 Oct 2015)

Craig Oliver on the "change" ... his comments upset some people but should have surprised none.


----------



## Jed (21 Oct 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Craig Oliver on the "change" ... his comments upset some people but should have surprised none.



In my opinion it shows a lack of class on his part. I can't help it but when I see him speak I think of that long beaked muppet bird we used to see on Sesame Street.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (21 Oct 2015)

Jed said:
			
		

> In my opinion it shows a lack of class on his part. I can't help it but when I see him speak I think of that long beaked muppet bird we used to see on Sesame Street.



And likening him to a Sesame Street character shows class how?

Aside from that, do you see an accuracy in  his comments?


----------



## Jed (21 Oct 2015)

Hey I am not a reporter on national TV speaking about a freshly defeated Prime Minister, I'm just a plain Joe in the cheap seats with a Tag you can read below.  ;D

His comments had elements of truth but were unnecessarily harsh and cruel.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (21 Oct 2015)

I guess what mom said was true;  it's not what you say, it's how you say it.


----------



## Brad Sallows (21 Oct 2015)

>Aside from that, do you see an accuracy in  his comments?  

No.  It's the usual self-serving hyperbole.  All of those criticisms apply in at least a minor degree to all political parties in office, and sometimes those out-of-office.

The various ABC supporters - media and otherwise - are indulging in a spate of self-congratulation over the end of the decade of darkness, the politics of fear and division, etc.  They are - apparently - lacking in sufficient self-awareness to see their own 11+ year (this stuff goes back to the 2004 election) long version of a "Two Minutes Hate" - fear-mongering and division writ large and long.


----------



## The Bread Guy (26 Oct 2015)

Some commentary about reporters from a former/sometimes reporter/columnist:


> .... It is important to understand that, except a few, the journalists are not ideologues. They are, once again, typical products of our drive-in universities, and journalism schools which have, if possible, even lower intellectual standards. They know no history, nor anything much about the topics on which they write, and can be easily mesmerized by a narrative they have themselves written, by rote. Such is the nature of promotion within what has become a niche of the entertainment industry, that those of independent mind and moral fibre are quickly weeded out.
> 
> I’m inclined to use the term “progressive” rather than dwell on Left and Right wings, for there is some contrast between, say, MSNBC and Fox in the USA, between CBC and Sun News up here. There is a growing Right — an opposition within the media to itself — but it is not a significant improvement on the monotony that preceded it. The idea that, as a form of entertainment, news coverage should aspire to “tabloid” conditions, and avoid subjects which require knowledge, governed the rightwing impresarios from the start. The Right is fresher and feistier than the Left, and by its Pavlovian habit of reacting to Left agendas, sometimes traps itself in a principled position; but this is a random, not intended effect. Both sides continue to share the post-Christian worship of abstract “liberty,” “equality,” and material “progress.” They clash on who can deliver these empty buckets quicker. But the battle is fought from both sides with the same weaponry — platitudes and clichés — in a kind of unending spiritual Verdun. “Progress” invariably emerges as the victor ....


----------



## Brad Sallows (30 Oct 2015)

On cbc.ca today:

"Canada's economy grew by 0.1 per cent in August — the third consecutive monthly gain following five straight months of shrinking — as the economy continued to pull out of the mild recession that began at the start of the year."

So much for even the "technical definition of a recession".  Inconvenient for narrative?  Make your own definition!


----------



## George Wallace (31 Oct 2015)

How long do we have to accept this BS from the CBC?

CBC smears Canadian military with bogus airstrike "investigation" (and gives ISIS free propaganda)

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/fifth-estate-canada-airstrikes-iraq-civilian-casualties-1.3292723


----------



## Fishbone Jones (31 Oct 2015)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> How long do we have to accept this BS from the CBC?
> 
> CBC smears Canadian military with bogus airstrike "investigation" (and gives ISIS free propaganda)
> 
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/fifth-estate-canada-airstrikes-iraq-civilian-casualties-1.3292723



If you read the comments (shudder), it sounds like the Communist Broadcasting Corp is simply shoring up JT's position to bring them home and quiet opposition to that plan by saying that we should have no part in bombing women and children.

The election is over, but the Trudeau Liberals are already collecting on their marker for upping cash to the CBC.

The truth has never really mattered to either of them.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (31 Oct 2015)

recceguy said:
			
		

> If you read the comments (shudder), it sounds like the Communist Broadcasting Corp is simply shoring up JT's position to bring them home and quiet opposition to that plan by saying that we should have no part in bombing women and children.
> 
> The election is over, but the Trudeau Liberals are already collecting on their marker for upping cash to the CBC.
> 
> The truth has never really mattered to either of them.



I just don't watch or read the CBC.  If I want real news I look at the BBC.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (31 Oct 2015)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> I just don't watch or read the CBC.  If I want real news I look at the BBC.



^^^ This. I'll add my vote for BBC World also.


----------



## The Bread Guy (31 Oct 2015)

recceguy said:
			
		

> ^^^ This. I'll add my vote for BBC World also.


Especially the podcasts - quality information & comedy you can listen to whenever you want.


----------



## Rifleman62 (8 Nov 2015)

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/christie-blatchford-when-a-cloying-peter-mansbridge-became-too-much-for-even-trudeau-to-take

*Christie Blatchford: When a cloying Peter Mansbridge became too much for even Trudeau to take*

Christie Blatchford | November 5, 2015 

Photo at link: CBC's Pete Mansbridge rides with Justin Trudeau on his way to be sworn in as prime minster in the CBC "Behind-the-scenes of Justin Trudeau's first day as Prime Minister" video.

I was trapped in a Toronto court Wednesday with an alleged murderer — some days, you just get lucky — and so missed the massive coverage of The Ascension, as I have come to call Justin Trudeau’s arrival as prime minister and, more really, the return of the federal Liberals to their rightful place in power.

So Thursday, I looked up the CBC special I’d heard about, wherein anchor Peter Mansbridge got special, exclusive, nay unprecedented, access to Trudeau on the day of his swearing-in.

It was, ah, edifying.

Now, I grant you the young PM is a genuine charmer, and smart on his feet; that there are many engaging and accomplished people in his new cabinet, and that much of the country seems won over by Trudeau’s “sunny ways” optimism after almost a decade of relatively dour Conservative government.

I get all that. It’s pretty contagious.

But throughout the election CBC journalists, I thought, were caught in a difficult position: There they were, covering a campaign where one leader (Stephen Harper) had cut the CBC budget and seemed inclined to do more damage and two others (Trudeau and Tom Mulcair) were promising to reverse the recent cuts and pronouncing themselves in favour of stable, long-term funding for the public broadcaster.

How do you do that fairly, when one guy is threatening your livelihood and the other two are whispering sweet nothings in your ear?

I didn’t watch enough of the campaign coverage to have a clue how CBC’s reporters managed it — probably well — but it ought to have made the broadcaster institutionally cautious and keen to keep a certain distance once the Liberals won.

Instead, in what must look to cynics and Conservatives like a classic quid pro quo, the CBC and Mansbridge got — I presume sought — this ne plus ultra access to the PM.

The special ran to almost 25 minutes, and began with Trudeau and his two oldest kids riding to the top of the Peace Tower to raise the new flag for the day. (There’s a new flag every day. The twist was that Trudeau was this day the one to raise it.)

As they rode up in the elevator, Mansbridge asked if as a kid, Trudeau and his siblings had gone to the tower with their dad, former prime minister Pierre Trudeau.

It was one of several moments when Mansbridge strove desperately for the cloying, and young Trudeau resisted. (I have to say, such moments greatly endeared Trudeau to me. It would have been so easy to hit these big sloppy softballs out of the park with rank sentiment, but he declined manfully.)

“I think my dad made us take the stairs,” he told Mansbridge, who then went a bit gaga and mewled, “all the way from the bottom?” as though that was akin to climbing Everest.
Related

Trudeau then showed the kids his new office — telling them in French that it had also been their grandfather’s — and then the cameras followed him to a meeting with senior staff.

There was talk of “small announceables” and what to expect from the coming scrum with the press (it’s not just Harper’s PMO that talks of such crass matters), and Trudeau offered that he was astonished people still get worked up about the “gender balance” in his cabinet.

One of the staffers said that the best way to answer such questions was to just reference the year, which of course, to much applause, is what Trudeau later went on to do when a reporter asked why gender balance was so important to him and he replied, “Because it’s 2015.”

It was probably his weakest but most revealing moment because here he sounded just like those who are so over-the-moon to see the Liberals in charge again, and all right with the world. As a cynical friend wrote, after watching the CBC special, “It’s all so much better when we all agree and all is good and there’s no one else disturbing the peace.”

Besides, as that muse of mine puts it, if you really wanted genuine equality, surely there’s a good case for just doing it, not announcing it beforehand and reaping all the fawning. There’s a certain diminution of women inherent in saying a quota is needed.

On and on it went.

Photo at link: CP/Sean Kilpatrick: He walks! Justin Trudeau, with his wife Sophie, and members of his cabinet arrive at Rideau Hall to take part in a swearing-in ceremony, Nov. 4, 2015.

Mansbridge and Trudeau rode in a limo to 24 Sussex where Trudeau would meet his family and walk to Rideau Hall, and Mansbridge burbled, “How will you handle all this — the limo, bulletproof (glass) or whatever it is? That’s not you. …  Now that you’re in ‘the bubble,’ how will you stay true to yourself?”

Trudeau did not roll his eyes, but I thought he deeply wanted to do. “It’s not a challenge for me,” he said. “It’s a challenge for the RCMP,” meaning those charged with keeping him safe as he mingles with the public.

At one point, when Trudeau was talking about the difficulty of raising normal kids in a privileged family, Mansbridge actually shook his head in admiration.

But my favourite moment was when Trudeau and the new cabinet ministers got on a bus to head to their first meeting.

Mansbridge was just beside himself: A bus! A bus! What magnificent, one-with-the-people symbolism!

And the new PM looked quizzically at him and told him, essentially, to cool his jets. “There will be cars and limos,” he said, because those things go with government.

And Peter, Trudeau added, “Lots of people take a bus every day to go to work.”

All in all, it was a more effective arse-handing than the one he famously delivered to Patrick Brazeau.

National Post


----------



## Kilo_302 (11 Nov 2015)

The prevailing consensus seems to be that the media has an overly "liberal" bias and that this bias affects coverage of the Conservatives. This recent report seems to paint a different picture however, and it's not surprising given the ownership of media in Canada.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/11/10/newspaper-endorsements-harper-study_n_8523676.html



> The report from the Canadian Media Concentration Research Project found that 95 per cent of newspaper endorsements in the 2011 election went to Harper. That’s every daily in Canada that endorsed a party, except for the Toronto Star, which endorsed the NDP that year.
> 
> It was “roughly three times [Harper’s] standing in opinion polls at the time,” Carleton University Prof. Dwayne Winseck wrote in the report.



It changed a bit in the last election,  because even Conservative supporters like Coyne were turned off due to (insert reason):



> In the 2015 election, things weren’t quite as monolithic, but 71 per cent of all newspapers endorsements still went to Harper. Seventeen of 23 newspapers that endorsed a candidate endorsed the Tories, the study found....
> 
> The issue of newspaper endorsements was particularly contentious in the most recent election. Perhaps most controversially, Postmedia and Sun Media newspapers (now part of the same company) ran full-page, front-page ads for the Conservatives the weekend before the election.
> 
> ...



Then there's television. It's safe to say that CTV, Global and Sun News (now defunct) are largely in the Conservative camp, which leaves us with the CBC in terms of national news. The CBC is firmly neo-liberal and pro-market. I would compare it to CNN, not much in the way of real reporting, and giving equal time to all parties (and equal credibility to their arguments) seems to trump hard reporting of facts. Many at the CBC harbour ill will towards the Conservatives no doubt, largely because of funding issues, but the board is ALSO stacked with Conservatives. 9/12 members contribute to the federal Conservatives. Would the obvious bias of the board trump the obvious bias of SOME of the journalists? I say some here because the CBC DOES employ journalists with more Conservative leanings (Terry Milewski for example).

I would imagine that the majority of online "news"  (not counting blogs here) are more progressive and take a more critical stance of the Conservatives. However there are also numerous Canadian conservative news sites. I'm not aware of a study or report that summarizes the online landscape, if anyone has something like that it would be interesting to see. 

Still, the majority of posts in this thread seem to be referring to the mainstream "old guard" media. That is, newspapers, television and magazines. It's hard to see how these guys are obviously anti-Conservative given what we know about their positions in the last two elections and their ownership. Mansbridge WAS blathering like an idiot with Trudeau, but can anyone here say he lobbed anything but softballs at Harper when he had the chance to interview him?


----------



## Brad Sallows (11 Nov 2015)

Some of the organizations and people you think lean "Conservative" can only seem so for very Liberal/NDP flavours of "Conservative".

Endorsements and superficial fact reporting are the wrong places to look for bias.  Opinion pieces are where the action is.  Writers who discuss "politics of fear and division" as if it was something Conservatives recently invented and completely omit to place it in the context of the past 6 Canadian federal elections - which is to say, most writers - are not "lean Conservative".


----------



## Fishbone Jones (11 Nov 2015)

...........and just because the mother ship backs a party, they typically, abstain from trying to control their journalists' reporting and opinion.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (7 Dec 2015)

I don't know if anyone was paying attention during the National last night on CBC, but our friendly national broadcaster has now found a way to blame the military for past disasters that the military has nothing to do with:

They had a short presentation on the ceremony commemorating the Halifax Explosion and get this, they explain that the explosion was the result of the collision of two warships in the harbour. Of course that is nonsense. The two ships (the Mont Blanc, which blew up, and the Imo) were both cargo ships and the one which blew up carried explosives and ammunition for the war in Europe.

Funniest thing is, only a few years ago, the CBC ran a mini series on the very event, which got the factual side of things right - notwithstanding the infusion of fictional elements for entertainment value.

Anyway, I don't do this often, but I emailed a comment to CBC indicating that it does not say much about the quality of their research department if they can't get straight the basic facts behind an important Canadian historical event. I am waiting for an answer.


----------



## ModlrMike (7 Dec 2015)

I stand ready to provide you (virtual) CPR.


----------



## The Bread Guy (7 Dec 2015)

Gotta wonder if a researcher assumed that if there was ammo on the ships, they MUST have been "warships".


			
				Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> .... I emailed a comment to CBC indicating that it does not say much about the quality of their research department if they can't get straight the basic facts behind an important Canadian historical event. I am waiting for an answer.


I'm beeting one of two responses:  canned, or  :crickets:


----------



## jollyjacktar (7 Dec 2015)

First rule of politics, kiddo: never let the truth get in the way of a good story.

- Enoch 'Nucky' Thompson (Character) Boardwalk Empire Season 1

And the CBC of today is all about politics and slamming the military every chance they get.


----------



## George Wallace (7 Dec 2015)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> I don't know if anyone was paying attention during the National last night on CBC, but our friendly national broadcaster has now found a way to blame the military for past disasters that the military has nothing to do with:
> 
> They had a short presentation on the ceremony commemorating the Halifax Explosion and get this, they explain that the explosion was the result of the collision of two warships in the harbour. Of course that is nonsense. The two ships (the Mont Blanc, which blew up, and the Imo) were both cargo ships and the one which blew up carried explosives and ammunition for the war in Europe.
> 
> ...




LOL!  One that they already had all the facts researched and had produced a program on.  "New wheel gets the grease" I guess.


----------



## Edward Campbell (13 Jan 2016)

AP is reporting (on Twitter) that _al Jazeera_ US is shutting down just over 2 years after launching, at a cost, over that period of $2 Billion. The service will continue in a digital mode, rather than being carried on cable. In my opinion a similar fate awaits ABC (both of them, the one in America and the other in Australia), BBC, CBC, CBS, CTV and all the others, all over the world.

I don't know what the new model will be ... except that my former colleagues think that _*5G wireless*_ (there are two (incompatible) versions right now) will _may_ solve the "last mile" issue and that will be a game changer.


----------



## Kat Stevens (13 Jan 2016)

I live in a part of the country where any info arrives from a satellite, both tv and interwebs.  I'd just be happy if we could get cable and more than two bars on my phone.


----------



## Edward Campbell (13 Jan 2016)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> I live in a part of the country where any info arrives from a satellite, both tv and interwebs.  I'd just be happy if we could get cable and more than two bars on my phone.




Nothing is going to solve the problem of the cost of serving "rural" subscribers. Market forces say that you must balance costs over subscribers, and rural subscribers are, broadly and generally, unwilling to pay more than their urban confrères and the urbanites object to subsidizing country folk. Regulators (the CRCTC) tell the companies that they cannot charge you more in order to bring you good adequate service and the customers, in the cities, tell the companies that they want to pay less and less and less ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (15 Jan 2016)

Back to media bias, or, in this case lack of it ...

This is a story, "The Liberals have block-booked a swish New Brunswick resort hotel for a cabinet retreat and dispatched reporters to two other places in town so Justin Trudeau and his ministers can meet and mingle in private," that I would expect the _Sun_ or _Rebel Media_ to pick-up, but the first mention I saw of it was from, of all places, the _Toronto Star_.

I think Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is getting a bit of "free ride" right now ... including from me because I think he and his government deserve the benefit of the doubt for a while, at least, while they stumble into the realities of governing 21st century Canada.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------​
      (I am reasonably confident that the Liberals are leopards and cannot change their spots and this ...
          
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




          The famous _Western Standard_ spoof from the Chrétien-Martin era

               ... will morph into this:
               
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




      ... and I am reasonably confident that the media, including the Star, will be all over them.)

I also think, as the Brian Gable comment from the _Globe and Mail_ suggests, that the "honeymoon, is almost over ...

     
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



     Source: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/editorial-cartoons-for-january-2016/article27950170/

          ... for whatever reasons.


----------



## George Wallace (17 Jul 2016)

Seems that there are cracks in the dam that Canadian media networks hold with their passage of information to the Public.

https://bcblue.wordpress.com/2016/07/16/trudeau-booed-at-calgary-stampede-media-party-says-attendees-adored-him/



> Trudeau booed at Calgary Stampede, Media Party says attendees adored him
> July 16, 2016 — BC Blue
> 
> In yet another example how the Media Party protect Liberal PM Justin Trudeau by hiding or omitting anything negative that makes him look bad came from his visit yesterday to the Calgary Stampede where he was booed:
> ...



More on LINK.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (17 Jul 2016)

I certainly agree with you that there is a "media Party" that is not doing its job correctly right now (and a particular annoyance of mine is how, every time he presents a positive story on Trudeau, Peter Mansbridge has a gleeful look that makes it seem he has a hard-on).

However, this being said, the attendance of the PM, any PM, at the Calgary Stampede, regardless of the reception he gets (unless it causes a riot  ) is never front page news to me. It is a minor, purely political act that is almost a compulsory attendance ( in French we say "passage obligé") for any PM to the point that it means nothing, other than being seen - hopefully in a positive light - in one of Canada's major city. Fourth or fifth page is appropriate - but you still have to be honest when reporting the reception he got.

More important to me, as a Canadian, was how friggin annoying it looked when he commented, for the press, on the Nice killings, and later on little Taliyah Marsman's murder: These are somber occasions: Take the damn cowboy hat off you jerk. At the very least, uncovered head was called for. Personally, I would also have asked for a jacket to put over the cowboy shirt for the duration of the meeting with the press. You have to do something to make it look that this is a somber occasion, not merely a quick step outside the merriment of the Stampede that you sort of improvised. Imagine you are the president of France and watching this on your TV and it is presented to you as Canada's answer to the Nice events:"Hey, were standing with you France - now can I go back to the party?" 

Sorry, them's my beefs for the week end. /RANT OFF


----------



## a_majoor (17 Jul 2016)

We can complain all we want, but unless positive incentives to behave this way are eliminated, the Legacy media will never change. Of course change _is_ coming, just not the way either the Legacy media or most of us hope for: citizen journalists and Internet enabled podcasts, blogs and SM posts will be the primary source of information for more and more people (even if fewer and fewer individuals are actual "subscribers" to any individual outlet). Instead of the media promoting a monolithic "narrative" which picks and chooses what to cover and what to ignore, we will be assembling our information from a mosaic of pieces (and with each outlet will be trying to promote a narrative of its own).

Smart information consumers will browse a multitude of different sources to get different takes on stories, so, yes, there will still be a tinly place for the Legacy media as one piece of the puzzle, just not the dominant piece.


----------



## George Wallace (17 Jul 2016)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> More important to me, as a Canadian, was how friggin annoying it looked when he commented, for the press, on the Nice killings, and later on little Taliyah Marsman's murder: These are somber occasions: Take the damn cowboy hat off you jerk. At the very least, uncovered head was called for. Personally, I would also have asked for a jacket to put over the cowboy shirt for the duration of the meeting with the press. You have to do something to make it look that this is a somber occasion, not merely a quick step outside the merriment of the Stampede that you sort of improvised. Imagine you are the president of France and watching this on your TV and it is presented to you as Canada's answer to the Nice events:"Hey, were standing with you France - now can I go back to the party?"
> 
> Sorry, them's my beefs for the week end. /RANT OFF



Indeed.  Look at Putin's handling of the Nice murders as what a statesman should be acting like.  He no doubt, has a team of very polished professionals to guide him in his public appearances.

https://www.facebook.com/SputnikNews/videos/10154215566841181/


----------



## RocketRichard (17 Jul 2016)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> I certainly agree with you that there is a "media Party" that is not doing its job correctly right now (and a particular annoyance of mine is how, every time he presents a positive story on Trudeau, Peter Mansbridge has a gleeful look that makes it seem he has a hard-on).
> 
> However, this being said, the attendance of the PM, any PM, at the Calgary Stampede, regardless of the reception he gets (unless it causes a riot  ) is never front page news to me. It is a minor, purely political act that is almost a compulsory attendance ( in French we say "passage obligé") for any PM to the point that it means nothing, other than being seen - hopefully in a positive light - in one of Canada's major city. Fourth or fifth page is appropriate - but you still have to be honest when reporting the reception he got.
> 
> ...



As a Calgarian and westerner I would venture to say that keeping your cowboy hat on while making comments to the media is indeed proper etiquette. 

Inappropriate just may be comments from a person that I do believe has served our nation for many years such as: 'Take the damn cowboy hat off you jerk'.  These are not the types of comments I would advise my young soldiers and/or students to use.  Have a great day. 

RR out. 



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## jollyjacktar (17 Jul 2016)

RocketRichard said:
			
		

> As a Calgarian and westerner I would venture to say that keeping your cowboy hat on while making comments to the media is indeed proper etiquette.



Only if you're a "dude" in town as a visitor for Stampede Week or from Claresholm...


----------



## RocketRichard (17 Jul 2016)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Only if you're a "dude" in town as a visitor for Stampede Week or from Claresholm...


Ha ha. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## George Wallace (17 Jul 2016)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Only if you're a "dude" in town as a visitor for Stampede Week or from Claresholm...



Usually a "dude" from outside the region is considered a "dud".


----------



## RocketRichard (17 Jul 2016)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Usually a "dude" from outside the region is considered a "dud".


Disagree 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Brad Sallows (20 Jul 2016)

From where arises the notion that men who wear particular hats don't know when to remove them as a gesture of respect?  Ever watch any old movies?  The problem isn't confined to "cowboys"; it's a generational shortcoming, not an occupational shortcoming.


----------



## Jed (25 Jul 2016)

The Cbc seems to be in full support mode for Hilary Clinton much like they are for Justin Trudeau. Interesting.


----------



## jollyjacktar (25 Jul 2016)

Jed said:
			
		

> The Cbc seems to be in full support mode for Hilary Clinton much like they are for Justin Trudeau. Interesting.



Their left wing bias knows no borders.  Bunch of thuds......


----------



## Edward Campbell (25 Jul 2016)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> From where arises the notion that men who wear particular hats don't know when to remove them as a gesture of respect?  Ever watch any old movies?  The problem isn't confined to "cowboys"; it's a generational shortcoming, not an occupational shortcoming.


----------



## mariomike (25 Jul 2016)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> From where arises the notion that men who wear particular hats don't know when to remove them as a gesture of respect?  Ever watch any old movies?  The problem isn't confined to "cowboys"; it's a generational shortcoming, not an occupational shortcoming.



"It's values today. Standards are crumbling."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hqp1bGuiHHs


----------



## Kirkhill (25 Apr 2017)

On bias - from Politico.  A not notoriously conservative site.



> ....Parts of the media have always had their own bubbles. The national magazine industry has been concentrated in New York for generations, and the copy produced reflects an Eastern sensibility. Radio and TV networks based in New York and Los Angeles likewise have shared that dominant sensibility. But they were more than balanced out by the number of newspaper jobs in big cities, midsized cities and smaller towns throughout the country, spreading journalists everywhere.
> 
> No longer. *The newspaper industry has jettisoned hundreds of thousands of jobs,* due to falling advertising revenues. Dailies have shrunk sections, pages and features; some have retreated from daily publication; hundreds have closed.* Daily and weekly newspaper publishers employed about 455,000 reporters, clerks, salespeople, designers and the like in 1990*, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. *By January 2017, that workforce had more than halved to 173,900.* Those losses were felt in almost every region of the country.
> 
> ...



http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/04/25/media-bubble-real-journalism-jobs-east-coast-215048











Add in the tendency of "birds of a feather flocking together",  people voting with their feet to move to environments where they can feel comfortable, and you exacerbate the issue.  All the folks that feel isolated in small towns, lets just call them non-conformists, migrate to places where they find like minded individuals.  All the folks that feel out of place in large cities, lets just call them non-conformists, migrate to places where they find like minded individuals.  Blue becomes bluer and Red becomes redder - in the US, Canada, Britain or France.

Edit: Sorry for the poor graphics transfer.  See the article.


----------



## Lightguns (25 Apr 2017)

So the two most liberal centres of influence are controlling most of the served internet news content.  That is an interesting stat.


----------



## Dissident (7 May 2017)

From the CBC (Ottawa), reporting the numbers from the Gatineau flood. Using the SS soldier outline to represent CF soldiers:





Archived graphic here:





This has since been reported to them and they fixed it.

Still, I am livid.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (7 May 2017)

NinerSix said:
			
		

> From the CBC (Ottawa), reporting the numbers from the Gatineau flood. Using the SS soldier outline to represent CF soldiers:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That just encompasses so many levels of stupidity!


----------



## jollyjacktar (7 May 2017)

I don't know, that sounds like how the CBC view the CF to me.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (8 May 2017)

Well, I am going to give six out of ten to my local newspaper here in Montreal (The Gazette) for effort.

They have a picture of a LAV wading through water in the flood area, but called it a TAPV in the caption. There are TAPV deployed too, as I have seen them in the newscasts. So I give them marks for trying to get it right ... and not calling it a tank  [.


----------



## jollyjacktar (8 May 2017)

Or, a "fish" tank.


----------



## Good2Golf (8 May 2017)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Well, I am going to give six out of ten to my local newspaper here in Montreal (The Gazette) for effort.
> 
> They have a picture of a LAV wading through water in the flood area, but called it a TAPV in the caption. There are TAPV deployed too, as I have seen them in the newscasts. So I give them marks for trying to get it right ... and not calling it a tank  [.



At least they didn't call it a "Coast Guard Tank"...   ;D


----------



## Kirkhill (23 Jun 2017)

This is right.....  ;D



> They’re Wrong About Everything
> 
> Column: More evidence the political class doesn't know what it's talking about
> 
> ...



http://freebeacon.com/columns/theyre-wrong-everything/

It may be the last opinion with which I agree.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (23 Jun 2017)

I feel somewhat vindicated. People laugh and criticized when I say the same thing. I'm not an outlier after all.


----------



## Kirkhill (23 Jul 2017)

And now the News - brought to you by undisclosed sources in the media commenting on their undisclosed sources......




> *Try to imagine what it’s like for recent graduates from the country’s top journalism schools when they first hit the Washington happy hour scene. It’s their first time out with their senior colleagues, their mentors—whoever still has a job. Everyone is three drinks into the evening and bragging about who’s closer to some deputy assistant secretary at the Pentagon, or the scheduler for the vice president’s chief of staff.
> 
> Gee, the apprentice reporter thinks to herself, in my “Sociology of the Fourth Estate” seminar at Medill, my favorite professor told me that as journalists, those who help provide the free flow of information necessary for the electorate to make choices about how we live at home and influence others abroad, we serve the American people. And now you’re saying that what we’re really doing is advancing the interests of certain bureaucrats against their rivals in other bureaucracies. So we’re political operatives—except we get paid less. Much much less.
> 
> The news media is dead broke. Print advertising is washed up and all the digital advertising that was supposed to replace lost revenue from print ads and subscribers has been swallowed up by Facebook and Google. But the good news is that people will still pay for stories, and it’s an awful lot easier to bill one customer than invoicing the 1,500 readers of your blog. The top customers for these stories are political operations.*






> Fusion GPS Illuminates the Brave New World of Manufactured News for Hire
> News of the News: How the new sausage gets made
> By Lee Smith
> Tablet
> ...



http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/241381/news-of-the-news

Somebody argued that the American Constitution required Freedom of the Press - and that consequently the Institution of the Press had peculiar standing in American politics.

I countered that freedom of the press is the freedom granted to every individual to utter their commentary and beliefs unhindered except by laws on sedition and libel.  There is no allowance for the Institution of the Press in Original America - anymore than there is allowance for the entrenched bureaucracies of the FBI, CIA, State Department, EPA or any of the others.  They are all employees of the Executive branch whose Chief Officer is turned over, by design, every 4 years.

I still stand by that and suggest, with many others, that what we are witnessing is the realization of a small number of people, who thought they had the system figured out to their benefit, that control is being wrested from them.


----------



## Kirkhill (23 Jul 2017)

Similar vein - from the Guardian

Of Politico's Playbook, Lally Weymouth's guest list,  The Gang of 500 and respectable legitimacy.

The world of France's Salons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salon_(France)

And a world away from Burns's Masons, though perhaps not so far away from Edinburgh's Select Society and the Poker Club.



> The media's war on Trump is destined to fail. Why can't it see that?
> Thomas Frank
> 
> The news media needs to win its war with Trump, and urgently so. But the goal should be more than just reestablishing the old rules of legitimacy
> ...



https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jul/21/media-war-trump-destined-fail?CMP=share_btn_tw

PS - I do not share the author's concern about the world burning (I see the same age-old smoulder) nor do I feel an urgent need to be divested of Donald Trump.


----------



## Rifleman62 (23 Jul 2017)

http://video.foxnews.com/v/5508220295001/?#sp=show-clips

*Russia connection: Fusion GPS, Trump Jr, and Veselnitskaya*

Jul. 14, 2017 - 3:15 - Opposition research firm Fusion GPS has been in the spotlight following Donald Trump Jr's meeting with Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya. How are they connected?



http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/07/21/fusion-refusal-co-founder-firm-behind-trump-russia-dossier-to-plead-fifth.html
*
Co-founder of firm behind Trump-Russia dossier to plead the Fifth* - Published July 21, 2017 Fox News

Glenn Simpson, whose Fusion GPS firm has been tied to anti-Trump efforts and pro-Russian lobbying, will not talk to lawmakers in response to a subpoena, the leaders of the Senate Judiciary Committe said Friday.

Committee chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, and ranking member Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., confirmed in a statement that they subpoenaed Simpson to appear before the committee Wednesday as part of a hearing about the influence of foreign lobbying in last year's presidential election.

"Simpson’s attorney has asserted that his client will invoke his Fifth Amendment rights in response to the subpoena," Grassley and Feinstein said.


----------



## mariomike (23 Jul 2017)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> http://video.foxnews.com/v/5508220295001/?#sp=show-clips
> 
> *Russia connection: Fusion GPS, Trump Jr, and Veselnitskaya*
> 
> ...



Perhaps this belongs in Radio Chatter, rather than Canadian Politics.

U.S. Politics 2017 
http://milnet.ca/forums/threads/125056.925.html


----------



## Kirkhill (23 Jul 2017)

Perhaps Canadian Politics should be dropped to Radio Chatter.

Everything is connected.


----------



## The Bread Guy (8 Aug 2017)

A recent survey (+8,700 participants) on trusted media outlets shows a mix of media in both the trusted and not-trusted categories - rating chart attched - with more here (coverage of the report) and here (full report).


----------



## Fishbone Jones (9 Aug 2017)

I came across something interesting today. It 'kinda' goes with the above graph, but isn't in there.

There's been complaints about not sharing sources, others say they can't find anything, even when sources are provided, they're often pooh-poohed as alt-r or alt-l and no one believes them unless it fits their agenda.

I'd heard a report that the grits had asked Google to delete Harper from their results. If you've been wondering why you can't find the article(s) on Google, you inquisitiveness is understandable and you would likely say that there are no sources out there after your search, on Google, but you'd be wrong.

I did a quick experiment that will take about a minute for you to try and then you can draw your own conclusions on whom you wish to depend on for your information.

Here's the phrase I typed into the search engines: *liberals ask google to remove harper*

I typed it into Google https://www.google.com/
I typed it into DuckDuckGo (the one I use most. It doesn't track you or manipulate the results, to my knowledge) https://duckduckgo.com/?q=&kp=-1&atb=v54-3__
I typed it into Bing. https://www.bing.com/

You can judge from the results yourself. Personally, I put Google on the shelf a couple of years ago.

So, before you say to someone, "I can find no basis for your assertions" and call bullshit, remember where you're searching.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (9 Aug 2017)

I got nearly exactly the same results on all three searches. Mind you, I am not in Canada right now.

What difference was I supposed to see?


----------



## The Bread Guy (10 Aug 2017)

This _*does*_ make sense to remember as part of looking far afield for info ...


			
				recceguy said:
			
		

> ...Before you say to someone, "I can find no basis for your assertions" and call bullshit, remember where you're searching.


Search widely, but read/assess carefully ...



			
				SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> I got nearly exactly the same results on all three searches. Mind you, I am not in Canada right now.


Same here.  Also, I get a similar range of results on the same phrase using Yahoo.ca and Dogpile (meta search engine searching more than one search engine @ once).

A lot of factors can affect Google (and I suspect other) results, including where you're searching from, what browser/device you're using, what seaches you've done in the past, what results/sources you've clicked on in the past, etc.  Therefore, everyone's mileage may vary (sometimes widely).  You can learn more on what affects Google results from place to place and person to person here and here.


----------



## Lumber (10 Aug 2017)

I'm in Canada.

I tried it.

The order was slightly different, but I got all the same results.


----------



## Journeyman (10 Aug 2017)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> I got nearly exactly the same results on all three searches.





			
				milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Same here.  Also, I get a similar range of results on the same phrase using Yahoo and Dogpile.





			
				Lumber said:
			
		

> The order was slightly different, but I got all the same results.






			
				recceguy said:
			
		

> You can judge from the results yourself.


Yep;  seems pretty clear.   :nod:


----------



## Fishbone Jones (10 Aug 2017)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> I got nearly exactly the same results on all three searches. Mind you, I am not in Canada right now.
> 
> What difference was I supposed to see?



All other search engines returned results of the grits request to Google to remove all vestiges of the Harper years, from the PMO files. Google has nothing about it.

I've, personally, had problems finding information on the Harper years, on Google, that is widely available on other search engines.

I only posted to show the disparity in the different search engines and that not all info is bogus just because it couldn't be found on Google, or some other search.

The subject was pitched because that is what I was looking for at the time.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (10 Aug 2017)

recceguy said:
			
		

> All other search engines returned results of the grits request to Google to remove all vestiges of the Harper years, from the PMO files. Google has nothing about it.
> 
> I've, personally, had problems finding information on the Harper years, on Google, that is widely available on other search engines.
> 
> ...



That is interesting. Google showed me the articles you noted above in pretty much the same order as the other search engines.


----------



## The Bread Guy (10 Aug 2017)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> That is interesting. Google showed me the articles you noted above in pretty much the same order as the other search engines.


Same - see attached for top five hits for me.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (11 Aug 2017)

No biggie, my reason for posting was already explained and still stands. What results are returning, now or then, is totally immaterial to that premise really. Perhaps my computer got stuck in a grit maelstrom where Harper doesn't exist.


----------



## The Bread Guy (22 Aug 2017)

No doubt more than a tiny element of schaudenfraude by some of the outlets covering, but interesting times over at Rebel Media with staff departures and ... stuff ...

_*"Rebel Media co-founder quits over company's ties to right-wing groups"*_ (_Globe & Mail_)
_*"Rebel Media commander Ezra Levant claims he's being blackmailed"*_ (_Georgia Straight_)
_*"A fight over a four-bedroom house: The Rebel Media meltdown and the full recording at the centre of the controversy"*_ (Global News)
_*"Inside Rebel Media* -- How Ezra Levant built an extreme media juggernaut, became a major player in the far-right movement — and watched it all begin to unravel ..."_ (_National Post_)
_*"The Rebel disrupted as it loses its domain provider"*_ (_National Post_)
_*"Canada's conservative Rebel Media site down after service cut"*_ (Reuters)
_*"Follow the money* -- In the midst of a meltdown, we piece together how the controversial Rebel Media funds its operations... "_ (VICE News)


----------



## Scott (22 Aug 2017)

The Rebel is getting absolutely hammered the last week. It looks pretty good on them. I think they'll weather, but it's pretty frigging interesting to see it play.

Ezra wants you to help him fight back against the evil out there : https://www.therebel.media/stand-with-the-rebel and to show how serious old Ezra is, he's finally going to lift the flap on the Rebel's finances (maybe)

Interesting Ezra's range of tact the last while. You know, not knowing what the Alt-Right was all about and stuff  :-X

Schaudenfreude, indeed.


----------



## Strike (23 Aug 2017)

Scott said:
			
		

> The Rebel is getting absolutely hammered the last week. It looks pretty good on them. I think they'll weather, but it's pretty frigging interesting to see it play.
> 
> Ezra wants you to help him fight back against the evil out there : https://www.therebel.media/stand-with-the-rebel and to show how serious old Ezra is, he's finally going to lift the flap on the Rebel's finances (maybe)
> 
> ...



Well, if I was ever looking for a job...maybe not.  It would be interesting to work there, but I don't think I could reasonably work for an organization that has a completely different belief system from my own.


----------



## Jarnhamar (23 Aug 2017)

Scott said:
			
		

> The Rebel is getting absolutely hammered the last week. It looks pretty good on them. I think they'll weather, but it's pretty frigging interesting to see it play.
> 
> Ezra wants you to help him fight back against the evil out there : https://www.therebel.media/stand-with-the-rebel and to show how serious old Ezra is, he's finally going to lift the flap on the Rebel's finances (maybe)
> 
> ...



I hope the Rebel remains open and active. I think they cover a lot of stories and topics that aren't politically correct and other people are afraid to talk about. Some of their stuff is really eye opening.

Their problem is that they also shoot themselves in the foot because they also post stupid material that looks like it's intent is to incite racism, anti-Muslim crap and shit to just get people riled up. They don't police their social media very well so hateful violent comments can be the norm. I think they took a big hit when they lost Lauren Southern.

Sadly media on all sides seems more about entertainment and supporting X political group than it is about reporting facts.


----------



## Scott (23 Aug 2017)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> I hope the Rebel remains open and active. I think they cover a lot of stories and topics that aren't politically correct and other people are afraid to talk about. Some of their stuff is really eye opening.
> 
> Their problem is that they also shoot themselves in the foot because they also post stupid material that looks like it's intent is to incite racism, anti-Muslim crap and shit to just get people riled up. They don't police their social media very well so hateful violent comments can be the norm. I think they took a big hit when they lost Lauren Southern.
> 
> Sadly media on all sides seems more about entertainment and supporting X political group than it is about reporting facts.



They have also been caught flat out in lies. So they rail against the likes of the CBC for twisting news and then they do the same thing themselves. 

The Rebel is not so much media, but a political advertiser. That in itself makes them even harder to take seriously.

I try to look at them as the whole broken clock can be right, but they continually do stupid things. Like Ezra claiming he didn't really know what Alt-Right was about? That was a laughable moment. And his hush money scheme for the Brits who were going to out some of his practices? And reading deeper into those "financial statements" they are pie charts anyone can do on Powerpoint, not audited statements. 

If Ezra wants to be taken seriously then he should work to prove he should be taken seriously. I mean, is there a Conservative left that will speak to him?


----------



## Strike (23 Aug 2017)

The Rebel is nothing but a tabloid, and I don't mean in the printing format.

They may very well get a few good pieces out every once in awhile.  But by and large, their staff are mostly inexperienced wannabe journalists who would rather post a story with the intent of stirring the pot than to do the tiniest bit of fact checking or even asking if the other side has something to say.

I'm speaking from experience.

It's a shame, because there have been a few really hard working individuals that are willing to do the hard work to get into the nitty gritty that no one wants to talk about, but their work is overshadowed by Team Instant Gratification.


----------



## Scott (23 Aug 2017)

Team Post What Drums Up Max Donations.

Jesse Brown did a pretty good show this week on Ezra and The Rebel. it's worth a listen.


----------



## The Bread Guy (23 Aug 2017)

Scott said:
			
		

> Jesse Brown did a pretty good show this week on Ezra and The Rebel.


Good to meet another Canadaland fan!  I don't always agree with _everything_ there, but it's a cool "other voice".


----------



## Scott (23 Aug 2017)

Yup, big fan. In the same boat as you re: not always agreeing, but I agree more than I don't.

And the fact that he makes things very uncomfortable for Ezra is pretty rad in my books.


----------



## a_majoor (10 Sep 2017)

Interesting development, Rebel media is pre emptively seeking ways to eliminate their dependence of platforms like YouTube. Being deplatformed, having your platform demonetized (i.e. they play ads on your videos but you receive no revenue), preventing linking or playing on other sites is already a way of life for many conservatives and conservative channels on YouTube, so this seems entirely warranted:



> The launch of The Rebel Media mobile app is only a few weeks away. Please help us crowd fund the final components of this long-awaited mobile app (and take us all one step closer to being free from Silicon Valley censors) by donating at TheyCantStopUs.com. Thank you!



Considering how Sun TV was deplatformed by tilting the playing field against it (every news channel was included in basic cable packages _except_ Sun TV, and the CRTC would not relent either place Sun on basic cable, or force other news channels to be put on specialty packages), Ezra has reason to be concerned.


----------



## ModlrMike (18 Nov 2018)

Looks like the battle lines are being drawn early:

TAGHVA: Union representing Canadian journalists declares itself the resistance to Andrew Scheer

Can the mainstream media be trusted when the union representing them actively declares its opposition to a party not even in power?


----------



## Journeyman (18 Nov 2018)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> TAGHVA: Union representing Canadian journalists declares itself the resistance to Andrew Scheer


Just when you think that politics can't get any more stupid,  Dunning-Kruger collectively say, "oh ya? Watch _this_…"
      :facepalm:


----------



## Blackadder1916 (18 Nov 2018)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> Looks like the battle lines are being drawn early:
> 
> TAGHVA: Union representing Canadian journalists declares itself the resistance to Andrew Scheer
> 
> Can the mainstream media be trusted when the union representing them actively declares its opposition to a party not even in power?



Context?  It is always helpful to drill down to some basic numbers to see if this is worth more than a yawn.

from the linked article


> . . . the post opens up a serious can of worms as Unifor represents over 13,000 Canadian journalists.
> 
> For years many have argued that Canada’s mainstream press maintain a centre-left bias, this post only goes to further that sentiment in a dangerous way.



From Unifor's site


> Unifor is Canada’s largest private sector union, with more than 315,000 members across the country, working in every major sector of the Canadian economy.



So a little over 4% of the union membership is driving the agenda or is it that the union leadership is mandating the work output of those "13,000 journalists"?  But the one journalist that the article's writer quoted did not appear to be a union parrot, and even though he is a member of that profession employed by the mainstream media (sorta, it is Global after all), he is well respected (even on these means where he has occasionally participated) for his independence of thought.  Surely, he can't be the only one.

And are all those 13,000 union members actually "journalists" (you know, guys and gals who write the news or opinion pieces that fill the spaces between advertisements) or does it include a large number of the minions who do many of the other administrative and technical jobs that are required in a news organization.  I wasn't able to find the number of individuals who identified themselves as journalists in the last census (I am not happy with the "new look and feel" of the StatsCan pages) but in one dated article (from 2013) the writer quoted a figure of just over 13,000.  Are all journalists in Canada represented by this one union?  Unlikely, since the majority of those at the bête noire of leftist Canadian MSM, the CBC, are represented by a competing union.

So,  :boring:


----------



## Cloud Cover (18 Nov 2018)

Hmmm. Well, you will likely see paid internships for online “journalism”, for outlets such as Rabble, Vice and the CCPA. The payor is Unifor or OPSEU, but the employer is the respective journalistic entity. I will grab some pics tomorrow from the student job board. But on the whole, when has the media not played the role of official opposition? 

“Our Republic and its press will rise or fall together. An able, disinterested, public-spirited press, with trained intelligence to know the right and courage to do it, can preserve that public virtue without which popular government is a sham and a mockery. A cynical, mercenary, demagogic press will produce in time a people as base as itself. The power to mould the future of the Republic will be in the hands of the journalists of future generations.” Joseph Pulitzer. This was a man with no time for fools or conspiracy theories. The quote is on the wall at the entrance to the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism, an institution which for many years, and probably even more so today, has no genuine or worthy Canadian peer.

How far the media has wandered off from   “Able, disinterested, public spirited press, with trained intelligence to know the right and courage to do it..”  is anybody’s guess. And what would be the categories of metrics when truth is disposable or inconvenient. Did Pulitzer capture those metrics, because if he did, then the level of “resistance” surely is not one of them.


----------



## Furniture (24 Nov 2018)

The National Post has an opinion piece on the new cash infusion set to be given to the media by the Liberals leading into an election. 

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/andrew-coyne-liberals-600m-aid-package-for-news-media-will-irrevocably-politicize-the-press

Hard to see how the government didn't see the bad optics in this.


----------



## Haggis (24 Nov 2018)

Furniture said:
			
		

> Hard to see how the government didn't see the bad optics in this.



The bad optics will be quickly overshadowed by the constant stream of positively spun Liberal slanted "news".


----------



## Journeyman (25 Nov 2018)

Furniture said:
			
		

> https://nationalpost.com/opinion/andrew-coyne-liberals-600m-aid-package-for-news-media-will-irrevocably-politicize-the-press
> 
> Hard to see how the government didn't see the bad optics in this.


I'm guessing that they saw the optics, weighed the pros & cons, and decided that a potentially beholden press was worth the effort given any public outcry would soon fade to typical Canadian disinterest.

I thought that the opinion piece was well written, but then (probably because I guess my coffee hadn't yet kicked in  : ), I clicked on the comments.  The first one I saw triggered flashbacks:


> This is Hitler 2.0, the Groper and his Gestapo run by Butts the Nazi are a serious threat to Canadian taxpayers in all aspects of their lives.
> 
> The Lieberal Propoganda Machine is druelling over the impending control and muzzle the Groper is going to impose on media outlets.
> 
> It's unacceptable, get rid of the madman and his lemmings, make this an election issue and fire that nutcase in 2019.


       :stars:


----------



## SeaKingTacco (25 Nov 2018)

Journeyman,

The reaction in the comments section that you highlighted is exactly the problem with this "bright" idea.

For the full on loonies, this destroys whatever credibility the Canadian media once had. Welcome the full blown, post fact Trumpites to Canada.

Even for more reasoned and thoughtful folks, it has now got to plant at least a seed of doubt in peoples minds that any news coverage the Liberals get from here on out is tainted. Even I wonder how the Conservatives can possibly get a fair shake, now. Even sub-conciously, if you are a reporter or editor in Canada and the difference between having a job or not having one is this program, how hard are you going to try to dig up dirt on the Liberals?

This is precisely why governments should have nothing...NOTHING...to do with media, beyond holding press conferences amd giving interviews. Ever.


----------



## Furniture (25 Nov 2018)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Journeyman,
> 
> The reaction in the comments section that you highlighted is exactly the problem with this "bright" idea.
> 
> ...



This is pretty much how things look to me as well. 

After having spent some time immersed in the American media environment I was reassured by the appearance of a generally balanced news media in Canada, that wasn't obviously a shill for one side or the other. With the government now proposing to directly fund the news media that appearance goes out the window. Jokes about the Communist Broadcasting Corporation were amusing(kinda? not really...) because we had other independent media sources to balance any perceived CBC bias.


----------



## Rifleman62 (14 Dec 2018)

http://nationalpost.pressreader.com/national-post-latest-edition/20181214/textview

*FOX NEWS FOR LEFT WINGERS* - National Post - 14 Dec 18 - Lawrence Solomon 
   _If you are a progressive, listening to Hannity may make your head explode, Lawrence Solomon warns._

Ever wonder why Donald Trump hasn’t been impeached yet, given the mountains of evidence against him and all those convictions of his cronies? Maybe you were even surprised that he was elected president. And that the stock market immediately soared. And that manufacturing has come back to the United States. And that U.S. economic growth is again at levels many thought were a thing of the past.

Maybe you were also surprised that the Brits voted to exit the European Union, and that the citizens in other European countries are moving in the same direction. And that the Paris climate accord has led to the disaccord torching Paris streets. Maybe you’re wondering why peak oil never happened, and why you stopped hearing about all those Pacific islands that were going to be submerged by global warming.

If so, don’t blame yourself. Blame the mainstream media, which has misled you and so often left you clueless. But there is a way to recover your understanding of the world, so that current events don’t keep throwing you for a loop. The cure isn’t for everyone. But those who want to be in the know can take the medicine, strictly following instructions.

The medicine is called Fox News. If you are a progressive for whom a low dose is required, you must never watch Sean Hannity, certainly not in the first year, before you’ve developed antibodies. He’ll make your head explode. Also on the DO-NOT WATCH list are Tucker Carlson and Laura Ingraham. If you do happen to stumble on one of them the only antidote is switching to Shepard Smith’s 3 p.m. ET show at the earliest opportunity (maybe even TiVo him for use in an emergency). Shep will restore your equilibrium with some of TV’s finest Trump bashing, familiarly in the guise of presenting impartial news, just like they do on other networks.

For a fair-and-balanced Fox experience, start with Martha MacCallum’s 7 p.m. weekday show, The Story. You’ll be hard-pressed to notice any scent of ideology in her thoughtful questioning of brilliant guests, including many of the best legal minds in Democratic circles such as Harvard University’s Alan Dershowitz and George Washington University’s Jonathan Turley. MacCallum has no rough edges, she’s thoroughly likable, thoroughly prepared and fearless in asking disarming questions that elicit unscripted answers from her guests.

Super-smart and super nice also describe Shannon Bream in her 11 p.m. show, Fox News @ Night, a mix of hard news and interviews, typically also of top legal minds of both parties. Bream, a lawyer and formerly Fox’s Supreme Court correspondent, is so unbelievably nice, in fact, that her guests and colleagues spontaneously gush, live onair, at her unbelievable niceness. Other shows that will impress left-leaners include Fox News Sunday, hosted by Chris Wallace, a tough interviewer whose pro-Democrat biases rarely show, and Bret Baier’s weekday 6 p.m. Special Report, which provides straight news and balanced analysis. Unlike hosts on other networks, who can be counted on to downplay or altogether ignore news embarrassing to Democrats, the poker-faced Baier provides no such cover for wrongdoers of either party.

Fox News provides opposing perspectives, often articulated by their most accomplished advocates in head-to-head debates, letting you judge for yourself whose arguments best stand up to scrutiny. Satisfyingly, these exchanges, and other interviews involving politics and law, also provide the civics lessons that schools today neglect. Crystal-clear explanations from the likes of passionate civil libertarians like Dershowitz are a treat to imbibe. With so much of the news these days involving complex process issues — the Mueller investigation into Trump’s suspected Russian collusion, the Kavanaugh Supreme Court confirmation hearing, the rights of migrants to obtain refugee status — the need to understand the rule of law becomes paramount. By meeting that need, Fox makes its viewers smarter.

Because all viewers — Democrats, Republicans and Independents — feel empowered when they “get it,” Fox attracts viewers across the ideological spectrum, with the proportion of Democrat and Independent viewers outnumbering its Republican viewers and the Fox audience sometimes exceeding that of CNN and MSNBC combined. There’s a danger for those on the left who watch Fox, however: They may not stay on the left. According to a study last year in the American Economic Review, watching Fox News as little as an additional 2.5 minutes a week will make someone likelier to vote Republican, while watching MSNBC for that amount of time has negligible effect. The study further found that Fox News has been responsible for an increasing share of the Republican vote: “Our estimates imply increasing effects of FNC (Fox News Channel) on the Republican vote share in presidential elections over time, from 0.46 points in 2000 to 6.34 points in 2008.” That suggests that without Fox News, John Kerry would have obtained more votes than George W. Bush in the 2004 election and Barack Obama’s 53-46 per cent win over John McCain in 2008 would have looked more like a 60-40 landslide.

The existential question for those who lean left then becomes, “Is becoming knowledgeable on the issues worth the risk that I will lose my identification as a progressive?” In this era of identity politics, the answer won’t be obvious.

NEVER WATCH SEAN HANNITY, CERTAINLY NOT BEFORE YOU’VE DEVELOPED ANTIBODIES.


----------



## larry Strong (14 Dec 2018)

I am on a couple of political pages on FB......run into so many people who will not read certain publications or web site's 'cause they are perceived to be right wing.........it does not seem to matter that the information might be correct......



Love your post 



Cheers
Larry


----------



## Remius (10 Jan 2019)

interesting study that looked at the amount of fake news shared on facebook during the 2016 campaign. 

http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/5/1/eaau4586

A lot to digest but to sum up:

Not as much fake news shared as one would think.

Fake news shared mostly by older people and by ultra right wing conservatives.


----------



## ModlrMike (10 Jan 2019)

Saw the same thing on CBC.

Their take... People who called themselves liberals shared no fake stories, New York research finds. People over 65 and ultra conservatives shared about seven times more fake information.

Now I'm not a rocket scientist... but 7x0 = 0 in my math.


The real takeaway point is that much of the phenomena in the over 65 age group can be accounted for by poor digital literacy.


----------



## Remius (10 Jan 2019)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> Saw the same thing on CBC.
> 
> Their take... People who called themselves liberals shared no fake stories, New York research finds. People over 65 and ultra conservatives shared about seven times more fake information.
> 
> ...



that was something mentioned in the study.  Older people also tend to be conservative but that they may be more prone to sharing fake news than others. 

My overall take is that fake news isn't shared as much as we may think. 

Edit to add to what ModlrMike stated:  From the study link above:  http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/5/1/eaau4586

_Within this cohort, lower levels of digital literacy could be compounded by the tendency to use social endorsements as credibility cues (19). If true, this would imply a growing impact as more Americans from older age groups join online social communities. A second possibility, drawn from cognitive and social psychology, suggests a general effect of aging on memory. Under this account, memory deteriorates with age in a way that particularly undermines resistance to “illusions of truth” and other effects related to belief persistence and the availability heuristic, especially in relation to source cues (20–22). The severity of these effects would theoretically increase with the complexity of the information environment and the prevalence of misinformation._

Disclosure:  I saw the headline and only read the first two lines of the CBC article and then looked for the source.  The link provided is the source doc, so from there form whatever opinion you want on the study but it looks like a decent body of work on the subject.


----------



## OceanBonfire (10 Jan 2019)

> *How it was conducted:* A survey of 3,500 people was conducted by pollster YouGov from April to November 2016, including a sample of 1,300 respondents who shared access to their Facebook time lines.
> 
> *Partisan split:* Education, income, and gender had no bearing on an individual’s tendency to share fake stories. However, there was a significant partisan difference: 18% of Republicans shared fake news links, versus fewer than 4% of Democrats. However, the researchers suggested this could be because most fake news during the campaign tended to be pro-Trump or anti-Clinton rather than because conservatives have any greater underlying tendency to share fake news.
> 
> https://www.technologyreview.com/the-download/612741/whos-sharing-fake-news-on-facebook-older-republicans/



Then again:



> *Junk news on social media is shared predominantly by the right wing*
> 
> Analyzing the dynamics of online political news sharing shows that there’s an ideological pattern to who’s spreading the bad stuff.
> 
> ...


----------



## Rifleman62 (12 Jan 2019)

For the Cdn viewers of CNN:

https://www.kusi.com/cnn-requests-kusi-for-local-view-on-the-border-declines-our-reporter-after-finding-out-wall-works/

*CNN requests KUSI (SAN DIEGO) for local view on the border, declines our reporter after finding out wall works* - 10 Jan 19    (Videos at Link)

SAN DIEGO (KUSI) – Thursday morning, CNN called the KUSI Newsroom asking if one of our reporters could give them a local view of the debate surrounding the border wall and government shutdown. KUSI offered our own Dan Plante, who has reported dozens of times on the border, including one story from 2016 that was retweeted by former Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich, and posted on DrudgeReport.com. The Border Fence Tour is below.

We believe CNN declined a report from KUSI because we informed them that most Border Patrol Agents we have spoken to told us the barrier does in fact work. We have continuously been told by Border Patrol Agents that the barrier along the Southern border helps prevent illegal entries, drugs, and weapons from entering the United States, and the numbers prove it.
_
@KUSINews
 · Jan 10, 2019
 Thursday morning, @CNN called the KUSI Newsroom asking if a reporter could give them a local view of the debate surrounding the border wall and government shutdown. After we informed them about our past reports, they declined to hear from us._

CNN PR replied to our tweet with the following statement, “We called several local stations to book someone for a show. We didn’t end up booking any of them. That happens many times every single day. We did, however, book a reporter from KUSI for a story on immigration and the border wall in November. This is a non story.”


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (12 Jan 2019)

Really? A wall stops "weapons" from entering the US. The US is worried about weapons entering it's territory when any idiot can already acquire an arsenal inside the US.

Is the worry purely from a commercial point of view then: they don't want anyone competing with the likes of Smith & Wesson, Colt, Remington and the likes?


----------



## Jarnhamar (12 Jan 2019)

The wall would actually likely save alot of Mexican lives in so far as the number of guns flowing into Mexico from the US.

Both from illegal sources and the government (ATF).


----------



## Kirkhill (12 Jan 2019)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Journeyman,
> 
> The reaction in the comments section that you highlighted is exactly the problem with this "bright" idea.
> 
> ...



Late to the party.... been staying away intentionally.

Just a quick point.  The funding will taint the institutions as you suggest.  "People" will be less likely to believe what they read.  

But

At the same time I believe that a large number of reporters, being aware of this perception, will now go out of their way to demonstrate that they are NOT government stooges and will incline towards a less friendly take on all things governmental.

So, how does this play out?

An increase in negative news stories but nobody believes them?  Or nobody reads them?


----------



## Journeyman (12 Jan 2019)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> So, how does this play out?
> An increase in negative news stories but nobody believes them?  Or nobody reads them?



I think we went very quickly to 





			
				Journeyman said:
			
		

> ... any public outcry would soon fade to typical Canadian disinterest.



While I haven't looked into it, I haven't heard of anyone's news-gathering styles changing.  I suspect that the same people who previously read widely and judged cautiously are still the same percentage as those who get news in 10-second sound bites, whether from CBC or Fox News, or those whose understanding of issues remains headline deep from whatever source reinforces their confirmation bias.

What may be an issue though, not directly related to media bias, is that the latter group is either growing or simply becoming increasingly strident in voicing their biased, ill-informed views.  Perhaps the movie Idiocracy is more of a prophetic documentary than a comedy.  "Sad"


----------



## The Bread Guy (17 Mar 2019)

Latest on the #NotYetBoughtMedia from The Canadian Press ...


> The Trudeau government is due to deliver an update to its plan to support journalism in next week’s budget but Ottawa’s recent silence on the file has stoked concerns in the media industry that a lifeline is taking too long to arrive.
> 
> Last fall, the federal Liberals announced new tax credits and incentives, worth $595 million over the next five years, to support the struggling news industry.
> 
> ...


A bit more @ link


----------



## The Bread Guy (20 Mar 2019)

Some details on the #NotYetBoughtMedia plan by Canadian media critic Jesse Brown (disclosure:  I listen to Canadaland & donate to his podcast via Patreon).

Twitter thread starts here - screen captures attached.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (20 Mar 2019)

Of all the Liberal ideas since 2015, this is by orders of magnitude, the worst.

Once a media organization takes the money, it can (rightly or wrongly) be accused of being the Government's pocket. Nobody will trust anything anymore. Which, cynically (and given recent events), might be the point.  

This is a mess. No serious media organization should take the money.


----------



## Jed (20 Mar 2019)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Of all the Liberal ideas since 2015, this is by orders of magnitude, the worst.
> 
> Once a media organization takes the money, it can (rightly or wrongly) be accused of being the Government's pocket. Nobody will trust anything anymore. Which, cynically (and given recent events), might be the point.
> 
> This is a mess. No serious media organization should take the money.


Ahh, but, they will.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (20 Mar 2019)

Jed said:
			
		

> Ahh, but, they will.



More to the pity...


----------



## Cloud Cover (21 Mar 2019)

Turns out there's an app for all of this: 
Introducing Pandr: The app that matches corrupt politicians with woke journalists  
https://theswift.net/culture/introducing-pandr-the-app-that-matches-corrupt-politicians-with-woke-journalists/


----------



## The Bread Guy (21 Mar 2019)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Nobody will trust anything anymore.


With everything else going on out there, mission accomplished ...


----------



## Cloud Cover (10 Jun 2019)

5.5 million Sole sourced contract to Post Media for communications research:
https://twitter.com/mindingottawa/status/1138059775369986049?s=19


----------



## QV (7 Nov 2019)

It doesn't matter who the leader opposite the LPC is.  The media will find a way to demonize him/her.


----------



## Ralph (7 Nov 2019)

Ah, yes - the monolithic leftist Canadian Media. All those Scheer endorsements must have been some sort of fiendish Commie reverse psychology, eh?


----------



## Good2Golf (7 Nov 2019)

QV said:
			
		

> It doesn't matter who the leader opposite the LPC is.  The media will find a way to demonize him/her.



Disagree. Some past Conservative leaders who would qualify again for future leadership (MacKay and Ambrose) who are quite capable of deftly dealing with the media in a way that falls completely outside of Scheer’s capabilities.

:2c:

Regards,
G2G


----------



## Altair (7 Nov 2019)

QV said:
			
		

> It doesn't matter who the leader opposite the LPC is.  The media will find a way to demonize him/her.


Do newspapers count as media?


----------



## Good2Golf (7 Nov 2019)

Altair said:
			
		

> Do newspapers count as media?



Aside from a lack of source reference, Altair, you can’t expect people to take that graphic seriously when CBC News is listed as having no bias since time immemorial...NONE...really?

Regards
G2G


----------



## Remius (7 Nov 2019)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Aside from a lack of source reference, Altair, you can’t expect people to take that graphic seriously when CBC News is listed as having no bias since time immemorial...NONE...really?
> 
> Regards
> G2G



That's a list of endorsements.  Not bias meter.  It's when a news outlet comes out and endorses a candidate or party.  The Ottawa Citizen came out in favour of the conservatives and endorsed Scheer.  The CBC has not actually endorsed anyone despite it's left leanings.  

One can endorse and not be biased and one can be biased and not endorse. 

that chart shows endorsements not bias.


----------



## Altair (7 Nov 2019)

Remius said:
			
		

> That's a list of endorsements.  Not bias meter.  It's when a news outlet comes out and endorses a candidate or party.  The Ottawa Citizen came out in favour of the conservatives and endorsed Scheer.  The CBC has not actually endorsed anyone despite it's left leanings.
> 
> One can endorse and not be biased and one can be biased and not endorse.
> 
> that chart shows endorsements not bias.


I think that's a stretch. 

I will agree with this though.


----------



## QV (7 Nov 2019)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Disagree. Some past Conservative leaders who would qualify again for future leadership (MacKay and Ambrose) who are quite capable of deftly dealing with the media in a way that falls completely outside of Scheer’s capabilities.
> 
> :2c:
> 
> ...



I disagree.  Once example: Scheer addressed the abortion topic, that he personally disagrees but would not open it for debate just as the former CPC majority did not when it was in government.  The media kept it alive to smear him.  It doesn't matter how Scheer addressed this or how many times he answered, or that this hasn't been an issue even during Harper... The media kept bringing it up as though Scheer was going to immediately outlaw abortion once in power.  So long as the LPC continues to pump hundreds of millions into the media, and the CPC states they won't, there will be tainted reporting.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (7 Nov 2019)

Altair said:
			
		

> Do newspapers count as media?



The graphic you've attached to your post is the literal definition of Fake News.

Because it selectively chooses which newspapers it has displayed.  Most of the media sources listed in the graphic are owned by Postmedia Group which is known to have right of centre leanings.  The Sun Papers for instance are all the same paper, they use the same reporters, etc.  They just change the name for every City they are printed in.

It of course throws in a few random Left of centre media sources to give it the appearance of legitimacy but then curiously includes CBC which isn't even a newspaper.  :dunno:

This brings me to my next point:

*IAW Milnet.ca Conduct Guidelines*, If you are going to post something in one of the many politics threads on this forum and try and pass it on as factual information, you will from here on out include the source where you found the article, picture, infographic, etc.  It must also be factual information and not a random meme created on Facebook (where the aforementioned attachment is from) and passed along as real news.  :tsktsk:

If you want to do that, there are plenty of other venues and forums where you can do so.  We expect more @ Milnet.ca

Consider this your first and only warning.

*Milnet Staff*


----------



## brihard (7 Nov 2019)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> The graphic you've attached to your post is the literal definition of Fake News.
> 
> Because it selectively chooses which newspapers it has displayed.  Most of the media sources listed in the graphic are owned by Postmedia Group which is known to have right of centre leanings.  The Sun Papers for instance are all the same paper, they use the same reporters, etc.  They just change the name for every City they are printed in.
> 
> ...



"Staff" me if you wish, but I respectfully take several issues with this. I like to think that I'm pretty fair minded most of the time, so I hope you hear me out and give this reasonable consideration.

1. You are decrying it as fake news, but I don't see it purporting to represent anything other than what it says. I don't see you contesting that any of the endorsements claimed on the graphic are inaccurate, false, or misleading in any way. I do not see it purporting to not be selective (but even at that it pretty much isn't- see below). I only see it purporting to name specific media outlets, and their endorsements for the last four elections. You are essentially attacking him for something that would fall under the umbrella of dishonesty, but I don't see anything whatsoever contesting that the specific information presented is factually inaccurate, never mind dishonest or deceptive.

2. I found a list of newspaper endorsements in the 2015 election. All of the top 10 newspapers by circulation that made an endorsement are reflected. All but one  of the top 20 (Waterloo regional Record, average circulation at the time of 53,000 daily) which made an endorsement are reflected. It's not Altair's fault that Postmedia has such a dominating role in our print media, nor that Quebecor appears not to have endorsed anyone. 

3. I checked. 15 of the 27 media outlets listed are Postmedia. Yes, a narrow majority, but hardly overwhelming. Any major Postmedia competitor that made an endorsement seems to be represented there; you have to go down to pretty modest circulation to find something that's not. I frequently see the Globe and Mail described as 'left wing' despite their CPC endorsement. Are the Toronto Star and La Presse 'a few random left of centre' newspapers, or are they merely major media outlets that legitimately merited being on the list? 'Toronto Now' I'll give you, but just about everything else on that list deserves to be there, and you aren't going to find that much was left out. You're staking about as close to the 'source your claim' line as you could without running afoul of the standards you're saying ought to apply to him. I would go so far as to suggest that what you said was rendered inaccurate by the strength with which you said it, and which facts don't really support to that extent.

4. It may be a 'random meme', but it looks to be factual. I see worse get posted here without challenge or without a staff-hammer.

 Wiki - Canadian newspapers by circulation
 Wiki - Canadian newspaper endorsements in 2015 election

5. The rules for the politics forum say he gets three warnings, not 'one and only'. Hand me one while you're at it if you must, but alternatively I'm going to suggest - as former staff on this site myself and with full respect for the pain in the arse that it can be - that you may have jumped a bit too early and hard on him on this one. I would also respectfully suggest you take this to the staff's forum (I'm certain there must still be one) and take part of a day to bat it around amongst yourselves a bit before coming back on him or on me for this.

While I'm not in full agreement with him - I believe there is more left wing bias in our media than he seems to- he is engaging reasonably and fairly, using the material our media industry gives him to work with, and I see nothing he's said or done here that's at all beyond what is generally accepted on this site. I'm bloody sure that coming out swinging at him and dismissing his post as 'fake news' when in the most literal sense it isn't, wasn't called for, and that we the membership can and should expect a bit better than that.

FWIW, when I was staff here I made calls at times that others could or should have challenged me on. I didn't always find it easy to separate my own personal views on a subject from actions I felt it necessary or appropriate to take. I also have the luxury of no longer being staff here and not having to preside over the page during and in the wake of this utter gong show of an election.


----------



## Altair (7 Nov 2019)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> The graphic you've attached to your post is the literal definition of Fake News.
> 
> Because it selectively chooses which newspapers it has displayed.  Most of the media sources listed in the graphic are owned by Postmedia Group which is known to have right of centre leanings.  The Sun Papers for instance are all the same paper, they use the same reporters, etc.  They just change the name for every City they are printed in.
> 
> ...


Sure.

https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/the-most-popular-daily-newspapers-in-canada.html


Rank    Paper Name              Region      Readership
1	The Globe and Mail	  National	323,133
2	Toronto Star	         Toronto	308,881
3	La Presse             	  Montreal	279,731
4	Le Journal de Montréal  Montreal	231,069
5	24 Hours Toronto	  Toronto	213,143
6	Metro Toronto	         Toronto	204,840
7	National Post	         National	186,343
8	Journal Metro	         Montreal	172,002
9	Le Journal de Québec	Quebec City 150,248
10	Montreal 24 heures	 Montreal	150,239
11	The Vancouver Sun	Vancouver	133,329
12	The Toronto Sun	Toronto	119,048
13	Metro Vancouver	Vancouver	113,500
14	The Spectator	        Hamilton	113,052
15	The Province	        Vancouver 112,115
16	24 Hours Vancouver	Vancouver	111,479
17	Calgary Herald	        Calgary	107,954
18	Winnipeg Free Press	Winnipeg	101,229
19	Ottawa Citizen	       Ottawa/Gatineau	93,277
20	The Edmonton Journal   Edmonton	91,776



1.Globe and Mail

2015- Conservative
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/editorials/the-tories-deserve-another-mandate-stephen-harper-doesnt/article26842506/

2011- Conservative
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/editorials/the-globes-election-endorsement-facing-up-to-our-challenges/article585060/

2008-Conservative
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/harper-is-growing-into-the-job/article1063218/?page=all

2006-Conservative
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/2006-globe-endorses-tories/article1063061/

2. Toronto Star

2019-Liberals
https://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorials/2019/10/16/liberals-are-the-best-choice-for-canada.html

2015-Liberals 
https://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorials/2015/10/09/for-justin-trudeau-and-the-liberal-party-editorial.html

2011-NDP
https://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorials/2011/04/30/toronto_star_endorses_the_ndp.html

2008-Liberals
https://www.thestar.com/news/politics/federalelection/2008/10/11/stars_choice_dion_liberals.html

3. La Presse

2015-Liberal
http://www.lapresse.ca/debats/editoriaux/201510/06/01-4907240-pour-un-gouvernement-trudeau.php

2011-Multiple
http://www.cyberpresse.ca/place-publique/editorialistes/andre-pratte/201104/28/01-4394343-pour-un-quebec-fort-a-ottawa.php

2008-Nobody
https://www.cbc.ca/news2/canada/politicalbytes/2008/10/whom-to-endorse.html

2006-Conservatives
https://www.cbc.ca/news2/canada/politicalbytes/2008/10/whom-to-endorse.html

4. Le Journal de Montréal 

2015-2006 none

5. 24 Hours Toronto

2006-2015-none

6. Metro Toronto

2006-2015- none

7. National Post

2015-Conservatives
https://www.cbc.ca/news/trending/andrew-coyne-resigns-editor-national-post-1.3278149

2011-Conservatives
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/04/28/editorial-board-election-endorsement-conservatives-a-clear-choice-in-uncertain-times/

2008-Conservatives
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2008/10/08/national-post-editorial-board-a-conservative-majority-serves-canada-s-needs.aspx

2006-Conservatives
https://web.archive.org/web/20070311074024/http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/editorial/story.html?id=a13e65ab-0055-41e4-83e7-27e78d4be2a4

8. Journal Metro

2006-2015 None

9. Le Journal de Québec

2006-2015 None

10.Montreal 24 heures

2006-2015-None

11.The Vancouver Sun

2015-Conservatives
https://vancouversun.com/opinion/editorials/editorial+conservatives+best+choice+manage+economy/11441448/story.html?__lsa=eb9a-89f5

2011-Conservatives
https://vancouversun.com/opinion/editorials/EDITORIAL+Conservative+majority+needed+through+turbulent+times/4701393/story.html

2008-Conservatives
http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/editorial/story.html?id=8b900721-0cb2-428a-aaaa-18bd722f5a3d

2006-Conservatives
http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/editorial/story.html?id=a13e65ab-0055-41e4-83e7-27e78d4be2a4

12.The Toronto Sun  

2015-Conservatives
http://www.torontosun.com/2015/10/09/harper-clear-choice-on-the-economy

2011-Conservatives
http://www.torontosun.com/2011/04/30/sun-backs-stephen-harper

2008-Conservatives
http://www.torontosun.com/comment/editorial/

13.Metro Vancouver

2006-2015-none

14. The Hamilton Spectator

2015-Liberals
http://www.thespec.com/opinion-story/5960056-the-spectator-s-view-time-for-a-change-in-how-canada-is-governed/

2011-Conservatives
https://twitter.com/terryvanderson/status/64292094826651648
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspaper_endorsements_in_the_2011_Canadian_federal_election

2008-none

2006-Conservatives 
https://www.thespec.com/opinion-story/2178685-political-endorsements-always-a-no-win/


More to follow...


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (7 Nov 2019)

Brihard said:
			
		

> "Staff" me if you wish, but I respectfully take several issues with this. I like to think that I'm pretty fair minded most of the time, so I hope you hear me out and give this reasonable consideration.
> 
> 1. You are decrying it as fake news, but I don't see it purporting to represent anything other than what it says. I don't see you contesting that any of the endorsements claimed on the graphic are inaccurate, false, or misleading in any way. I do not see it purporting to not be selective (but even at that it pretty much isn't- see below). I only see it purporting to name specific media outlets, and their endorsements for the last four elections. You are essentially attacking him for something that would fall under the umbrella of dishonesty, but I don't see anything whatsoever contesting that the specific information presented is factually inaccurate, never mind dishonest or deceptive.
> 
> ...



I don't often weigh in on political threads on this site because:

A.  I don't really care for politics or politicians; 
B.  Politics threads are full of opinion, feelings and conjecture and are usually echo chambers; and
C.  It has very little to do with the profession of arms which I view as the primary purpose of this forum.

I will stand by my decision to inject some moderation in to Altair's post in this instance and I will do so very publicly. 

1.  This is a meme from Facebook (I know this because I've seen it shared on that platform) and the member did not source where he took it from. - This can be fixed

2.  I am not disputing that some of the information isn't correct on the table, some if it is correct but that's not what makes it Fake News. What makes it Fake News is it selectively hand picks certain media sources to paint a narrative (it doesn't even cite where it gets the information from).    

It is even missing one of the top five and top ten largest circulated Newspapers in Canada:  Le Journal de Montreal and Le Journal de Quebec which btw, when you add those two Quebecor owned papers to the G&M + Toronto Star circulation, it's larger than the entire Post Media Empire.  

Oh and lets not forget that there are zero Newspapers from Atlantic Canada despite the Chronicle Herald being the largest circulated newspaper in that region of the country.  What about the Times-Colonist in Victoria?  I guess that doesn't count then but the Windsor Star makes the cut?

It then curiously decides to add a television and radio company to the list for reasons unknown?  If you are going to add the CBC?  Why not Global, CTV, etc?  Why stop there?  Why not include online media as well?

Overall, it's a pretty useless infographic and it isn't even clever.  If you are going to include a bunch of newspapers from the second largest city in Canada, you should probably include the one with a larger the circulation than the combined totals of the other three you did include.

Btw, the Original caption of this particular Infographic on Facebook was:  

"Conservatives love to whine about 'leftist media bias'  but when confronted with real proof of corporate media bias, they justify it any way the can"

The one posted is not even the entire photo, parts of it have been snipped off (probably using snipit tool) for reasons I'll leave to your imagination.  

Something something "Corporate media owned by billionaires" something something "Use the media" something something "protect interests by backing right wing politicians"


So no Brihard, I respectfully disagree with your assessment and am doubling down on this one.  Btw, the member has already been cautioned before but never so publicly.  

Milnet Staff


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (7 Nov 2019)

Altair said:
			
		

> Sure.
> 
> https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/the-most-popular-daily-newspapers-in-canada.html
> 
> ...



Much better Altair  8)

I think the infographic you posted does bring up one important point.  It shows how statistics can be manipulated to really suit any narrative you want.  

A more useful graphic would be a comparison of circulation numbers of newspapers and their respective endorsements.  I think that statistic would show that the media in this country is remarkably evenly split.  Everyone knows that Postmedia is Conservative, likewise everyone is aware that the Toronto Star is Liberal and all the papers they own are as well.


----------



## brihard (7 Nov 2019)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> I don't often weigh in on political threads on this site because:
> 
> A.  I don't really care for politics or politicians;
> B.  Politics threads are full of opinion, feelings and conjecture and are usually echo chambers; and
> ...



Quebecor, the Chronicle Herald, not the Times Colonist appears to have made endorsements. It looks like a major pet of the underlying foundation of your objection to his post was flawed... He can’t omit (or permit to be omitted) info that doesn’t exist.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (7 Nov 2019)

Brihard said:
			
		

> Quebecor, the Chronicle Herald, not the Times Colonist appears to have made endorsements. It looks like a major pet of the underlying foundation of your objection to his post was flawed... He can’t omit (or permit to be omitted) info that doesn’t exist.



The underlying premise of my objection was the member posting an infographic and passing it off as complete information.  It is rather incomplete though isn't it?

If making "No Endorsement" is irrelevant, why is the CBC (which I SAY AGAIN isn't even a newspaper) included in an infographic with a bunch of Postmedia & Other newspapers?

Further, the member did not cite the source of the information he posted (i.e. where he found it from) and also it was edited further from the original source which I will share with you:





Source:
https://www.facebook.com/wearenorth99/photos/a.1920329484847705/2366280403585942/?type=3&theater

If you are going to make inferences that Canadian Media is overwhelmingly conservative, you need to back that up with verifiable facts and you shouldn't negate to include information simply because it doesn't validate your own hypothesis.

I don't dispute at all that Postmedia isn't a Conservative Newspaper Company.  They bleed blue more than any other media company in Canada but they are only one media company.  You can't include all of their newspapers and then fail to report on other Major Newspapers, some of which are of the largest circulated in Canada.

I also don't mind being challenged and I think that is very healthy, which is why I am replying to you.   8)

EDIT:

To add to the above:

If we are going to accept the above as acceptable material for this forum, then why not extend that to Infowars, etc?  Yah, thought not...

 :nod:


----------



## The Bread Guy (7 Nov 2019)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> ... A more useful graphic would be a comparison of circulation numbers of newspapers and their respective endorsements ...


Although from the last election, closer to something like the attached? (source).***  Wikipedia, for all its warts, offers similar breakdowns for 2015 and 2019.

*** - Full disclosure:  This publication published a not-tremendous article I wrote in 1988 about how the Reserves could offer scholarships & similar incentives to encourage student enrollment.  I received no money for the submission.


----------



## Altair (7 Nov 2019)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> The underlying premise of my objection was the member posting an infographic and passing it off as complete information.  It is rather incomplete though isn't it?
> 
> If making "No Endorsement" is irrelevant, why is the CBC (which I SAY AGAIN isn't even a newspaper) included in an infographic with a bunch of Postmedia & Other newspapers?
> 
> ...


I didn't get the picture from facebook, I got it from another forum board and it was in the format that I posted here, I didn't edit it at all.

It should be added that thus far, nothing in the photo posted has been incorrect. ( They actually missed a endorsement from the Hamilton Spectator for the CPC)

If you don't agree with the photo not being sourced, that's fine, but to say it's fake news is not exactly true. I will finish the list, but i'm sure most of the rest are going to be blue endorsements given the Calgary Herald, Ottawa Citizen, and The Edmonton Journal are all postmedia.

So political bias of that photo( the full one that I did not share, not even knew about) being as it is, it's also, (thus far) correct.

Which is all to distract from my original question, does newspaper count as media?


----------



## Jarnhamar (7 Nov 2019)

99 North  :Tin-Foil-Hat:


----------



## The Bread Guy (7 Nov 2019)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> 99 North  :Tin-Foil-Hat:


One of a number of new-ish online-only news sites - a handy guide to those left & right (who's behind them, who funds them, etc.) here.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (7 Nov 2019)

Altair said:
			
		

> I didn't get the picture from facebook, I got it from another forum board and it was in the format that I posted here, I didn't edit it at all.
> 
> It should be added that thus far, nothing in the photo posted has been incorrect. ( They actually missed a endorsement from the Hamilton Spectator for the CPC)
> 
> ...



And I appreciate your efforts to clear that up Altair.  You'll also note that I didn't silence you either and you are still free to post in this thread.

As far as I am concerned, the matter is dealt with.  Feel free to carry on savaging each other.



			
				milnews.ca said:
			
		

> One of a number of new-ish online-only news sites - a handy guide to those left & right (who's behind them, who funds them, etc.) here.



Yep and like Alex Jones and Infowars, trash of the highest order.


----------



## The Bread Guy (7 Nov 2019)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> ... like Alex Jones and Infowars, trash of the highest order.


I don't know if I'd go _quite_ that far for any single site, but it's interesting to see which sites have which blind spots and which "usual suspect" sources.  #NothingHasEverythingButEverythingHasSomething


----------



## daftandbarmy (7 Nov 2019)

Altair said:
			
		

> I didn't get the picture from facebook, I got it from another forum board and it was in the format that I posted here, I didn't edit it at all.
> 
> It should be added that thus far, nothing in the photo posted has been incorrect. ( They actually missed a endorsement from the Hamilton Spectator for the CPC)
> 
> ...



According to Pew, in the US anyways, print is the new media dinosaur: 

Watching to Reading the News – and Mostly Still Through Television

Three-quarters of Americans who prefer watching the news opt for TV, but since 2016, slightly more watchers name the internet as their platform of choice

Overall, 47% of Americans prefer watching the news rather than reading or listening to it. That is unchanged from 46% in 2016 and outpaces the 34% who prefer to read the news and 19% who prefer to listen to it – both of which also remain on par with 2016 figures.

In addition to exploring the preferred format for news consumption, the study also measured which platform people preferred most for their news: print, television (through local, network or cable channels), the internet (through websites, apps or social media) or radio. Television continues to rank first as the preferred platform. Just over four-in-ten U.S. adults (44%) prefer TV, compared with about a third (34%) who prefer the web, 14% who prefer radio and 7% who prefer print. The only meaningful shifts since 2016 are a small increase in online and decrease in print news consumption.

https://www.journalism.org/2018/12/03/americans-still-prefer-watching-to-reading-the-news-and-mostly-still-through-television/


----------



## QV (7 Nov 2019)

The eminent ERC says it far more eloquently then I do in my drive by posts.  https://coloneltedcampbell.blog/2019/11/08/its-time-to-end-this-rubbish/


----------



## Journeyman (8 Nov 2019)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Disagree. Some past Conservative leaders who would qualify again for future leadership (MacKay and Ambrose) who are quite capable of deftly dealing with the media in a way that falls completely outside of Scheer’s capabilities.


I would love to add Caroline Mulroney to the list (competence, and appeal to voters whose only requirement is 2nd-generation political name recognition).  Unfortunately, she's now too tainted by association with Ford.    :not-again:




			
				Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> I don't often weigh in on political threads on this site because:
> 
> A.  I don't really care for politics or politicians;
> B.  Politics threads are full of opinion, feelings and conjecture and are usually echo chambers; and
> C.  It has very little to do with the profession of arms which I view as the primary purpose of this forum.


I've argued pretty consistently about getting rid of these threads because of 'B' and 'C'  ('A' I follow pretty actively).  The recurring tendency here though is for 3-5 individuals to turn discussions into tranwrecks;  the least informed have a tendency to be the most strident and repetitive.

If a politics thread doesn't have a clear and obvious linkage to national security and/or the military, scrap it;  there are other, better sites for those discussions. 


That being said....





			
				QV said:
			
		

> The eminent ERC says it far more eloquently then I do in my drive by posts.  https://coloneltedcampbell.blog/2019/11/08/its-time-to-end-this-rubbish/


Good re-post;  I hadn't gotten to my daily Ted reading yet.


----------



## Remius (8 Nov 2019)

To be honest there has been some derailing here and there but there have been less and less train wrecks.  Disagreements but mostly cordial.  Especially given the last election topic(s)

I'm sure I am not the only one who has noted that.


----------



## Rifleman62 (24 Jul 2020)

https://thepostmillennial.com/why-im-leaving-the-national-post
*
Why I'm leaving the National Post* - Barbara Kay - Montreal, QC - July 24, 2020  

_In a Canadian media industry that regularly lauds itself for courageous truth-telling, the goal is now to hide one’s true opinion rather than declare it._

It’s been two decades since my first byline appeared in the National Post. For a woman who already was well into middle age when her career began, the experience has been a thrill and a privilege. Perhaps more importantly, it’s been lively, energizing and fun. The National Post was conceived in 1998 as a safe haven from the stale pieties that dominated (and still dominate) the legacy Canadian media. Unfortunately, the spirit now has gone out of the place. And I’ve decided to step away from my regular column, at least for now. I’ve been noticing for a while that much of the best writing about Canada is increasingly taking place on platforms that didn’t exist until recently (and in some cases aren’t even Canadian). Numerous international writers whom I admire have decided to find new ways to reach their audience. I will now join their ranks.

There’s nothing the Canadian media loves more than stories about bitter infighting within its own ranks. And I wish I had a shocking tale of censorship or workplace bullying to supply to those media critics who trade on schadenfreude. Alas, I don’t. In fact, I continue to respect and appreciate the Post editors who’ve worked with me over the years. But the severe pressures they now experience no longer can be compartmentalized within their managerial sphere. They have spilled out into their relationship with their columnists, spoiling the weekly rites of editorial collaboration that once were one of the great joys of this job.

Thanks to the excommunication of James Bennet and (effectively) Bari Weiss from The New York Times, the vicious hounding of Margaret Wente at Massey College, and the CBC’s sadistic shaming of veteran broadcaster Wendy Mesley, the poisonous phenomenon I am describing here is by now well-known. Every editor feels like he is one Tweet away from getting mobbed and fired. And so the range of permissible opinion shrinks daily. Many columns now read as if they were stitched together from the same few dozen bromides that one is still allowed to say. In a Canadian media industry that regularly lauds itself for courageous truth-telling, the goal is now to hide one’s true opinion rather than declare it.

National Post editors Matt Gurney and Rob Roberts did their best to support me in recent months, even when my columns on charged topics were delayed or spiked. Days would pass between submission and publication, during which time the column shuffled from one editor to another for review.

As recently as today, my editor assured me that my job was not at risk. But every week seems to deliver new restrictions and anxieties. And a writer shouldn’t have to feel like she is imposing on her editor, or asking him to exert himself as a special favour, merely so she can give voice to mainstream principles that most Canadians believe. Even when my columns appear in the National Post without any kind of delay or objection, I feel a lingering worry that some stray word or phrase will cause an editor to suffer blowback. If I were a less experienced writer who needed the money or the exposure, these are concerns that I would accommodate. But I’m fortunate enough to not be in that position.

Since the early 2000s, journalists have anticipated the demise of their own industry. But we wrongly assumed that this decline would be driven exclusively by economic and technological factors. In recent months especially, it’s become clear that ideological purges have turned a gradual retreat into what now feels like a full-on rout. This is not a case of a lack of demand: The rise of popular new online sites shows that Canadians are eager for fresh voices and good reporting. Rather, legacy outlets are collapsing from within because they’ve outsourced editorial direction to a vocal internal minority that systematically weaponizes social media to destroy internal workplace hierarchies, and which presents its demands in Manichean terms. During the various iterations of political correctness that appeared since the 1990s, National Post editors fought against this trend. But as the public shaming of Rex Murphy shows, some now feel they have no choice but to throw down their weapons and sue for peace.

The last column I submitted to the National Post was a dispassionate review of Debra Soh’s new book, "The End of Gender: Debunking the Myths about Sex and Identity," which will be published next month by an imprint of Simon & Schuster. In outward respects, Soh is exactly the kind of writer whom progressives have lionized in recent years: a young woman of colour (and neuroscience PhD) who opines courageously about issues of sex and identity. Like me, she also happens to believe in concepts such as biology, sexual dimorphism, evidence-based clinical treatments, and the importance of peer-reviewed science. In a normal world, it wouldn’t matter that these concepts run afoul of ideological movements that venerate the revealed truths communicated by inwardly experienced sensations of gender.

But even many progressives (including those who signed the Harper’s “Letter on Justice and Open Debate” this month) now publicly acknowledge that these are not normal times. And if as famous and powerful a writer as J.K. Rowling can get smeared for stating that biology is a thing, it shouldn’t surprise readers to know that the submission below provided yet another occasion for Post editors to drag their feet.

We are experiencing a dark period for free thought in Canada. But extremist movements always work in cycles. And one already can hear the gears of counterrevolution grinding into motion. If my editors are amenable to it, I may choose to reappear in the pages of the Post when this movement is suitably advanced. Or not. Either way, I will find other means to get my opinions out into the world. And however I choose to do so, I’ve promised myself that the experience will be, at the very least, lively, energizing and fun.


----------



## shawn5o (5 Aug 2020)

Interesting article on media bias

Media Bias in Canada

Jon Tattrie

October 23, 2019

https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/media-bias-in-canada

Bias means supporting or opposing something or someone in an unfair way, regardless of the evidence. Media bias is when information spread by media or a news outlet reflects the interests and biases of ownership or individuals of that media company. Corporations may have a clear bias for one political party or issue and may influence its media outlets to reflect that bias. Individual journalists or news outlets may favour one side of an issue and reflect that bias — consciously or unconsciously — in the way they cover stories. The fact that a majority of journalists in Canada are White can also lead to biased reporting on minority groups. People can overcome unconscious bias by thinking and talking about it, and especially by listening to people from less privileged backgrounds.

Different Forms of Bias

Bias means supporting or opposing something or someone in an unfair way, regardless of the evidence. Journalists are trained to detect bias and avoid letting it creep into their stories. But there are several ways it can still influence the news they produce.

Bias by Selection or Omission

When journalists cover news events, they select or omit information as they decide what is most relevant. For example, if some people in a large crowd boo a politician, journalists can decide to characterize it as the entire audience booing her, some opponents “expressing disapproval,” or to not mention the boos at all.

Bias Through Placement

Journalists also decide how to “lead” a story — which information they should highlight first, and how they should present it. They often use an “inverted pyramid” structure to tell the story. In an inverted pyramid style, the reporter starts with a narrow focus on what she decides is the most important piece of information. She then pulls back to include more details and give a broader view of the topic.

Journalists also decide which story leads the broadcast news, and which stories go on the front page of a newspaper or the landing page of a website. Readers tend to assume these are the most important stories of the day, even if that is not stated.

Bias by Headline

With the increase in people getting news from social media, the headline has taken on an even greater role. In fact, it may be all some people read. Headlines can suggest the news is good or bad, exciting or scary, in a way the story might not do.

The drive to get people to share stories on social media has led to the rise of clickbait. Clickbait is when websites write dramatic and emotional headlines designed to pull in readers. The content of the article, however, doesn’t deliver what the headline promises. 

They often follow patterns like: “Man tries to hug a lion — you won’t believe what happens next,” or “This 1980s child star is all grown up — you’ll be shocked at how she looks!” or “Only people with an IQ above 160 can solve this quiz. Can you?” Clicking the link often takes people to a site filled with advertising, and only a few more details on the story itself.

Bias by Word Choice and Tone

Subtle use of language can influence how readers interpret the news. If a reporter writes that someone “claimed” something, it puts doubts in the reader’s mind in a way that saying someone “said” something would not. In a story on a middle-aged man who stole a car as a teenager, reporters could call that person a convicted thief, a reformed man, or a person who did their time. Each word choice guides the reader toward a different conclusion about the man’s character.

When Ontario premier Doug Ford marched in the York Pride Parade in 2019, the Toronto Sun headlined the story, “Ford proudly marches with cops in York Pride parade.” The newspaper reported that “dozens of police in uniform” marched and then noted that Ford had made an “unexpected appearance.” In the fifth paragraph, it reports that Ford won’t march in Toronto Pride, “which has banned police in uniform from marching for the third year in a row.”

By using words like “proudly” and drawing attention to Ford marching with police officers, the Sun story creates a favourable impression of the premier. It also creates an unfavourable impression of Toronto Pride by noting its exclusion of police “for the third year in a row.”

Global News reported the same story under the headline “Premier Ford marches in York Region Pride parade.” Its first paragraph said, “Premier Doug Ford took part in the York Region Pride parade in Newmarket on Saturday afternoon, amid mounting criticism for stating he wouldn’t participate in the upcoming Toronto Pride parade.”

By leading with “mounting criticism” over the Toronto parade and not mentioning the police officers until much further down in the story, Global News creates an initially unfavourable impression of Ford.

Meanwhile, the Toronto Star’s headline said Ford’s appearance took organizers “by surprise.” In the second paragraph, it quotes organizers saying, “[We were] not aware Mr. Ford was attending or marching.” This creates the impression that they may not have approved of his participation.

When Justin Trudeau’s Liberal Party won Canada’s 2015 federal election, the Toronto Star lead read: “Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. That title, which seemed improbable a mere 11 weeks ago, is now set to become a reality after the Liberals’ historic, come-from-behind election result.” The National Post lead read: “The Liberal Party steamrolled to a stunning political comeback Monday night, forming a new, majority government and creating Canada’s first family dynasty.”

Both leads focus on the comeback angle. However, the Star called it “historic,” which creates a positive impression. The Post instead called it a “family dynasty,” alluding to his father, former prime minister Pierre Trudeau. This could create the impression that his father’s legacy had an important role in Justin Trudeau’s victory.

Bias by Image

Photo editors pick an image to go with a story. They can choose one that makes the person look dignified, or angry, which influences how people read the story. Some stories about US president Donald Trump facing an impeachment inquiry ran photos of Trump yelling with his mouth wide open. Others selected photos of him looking stoic. The first image suggests he responded with anger and little self-control. The other suggests he reacted calmly. 

Political parties can also use, or even alter, photos in a way to spread a certain message. In 2019, federal Green Party leader Elizabeth May’s team published a photo of her campaigning. May held a reusable coffee cup with the Green Party logo and drank from a metal straw. However, she later admitted the metal straw and reusable cup were added to the photo digitally. The changes better fit her image of an environmentally conscious politician.

Unpacking Privilege

Privilege refers to rights or advantage that are granted only to a particular group of people. It can also refer more generally to advantages that come from being part of a dominant group in society. Becoming aware of these advantages and their impact on others allows a privileged person to more clearly see the disadvantages that can come from being outside the dominant group.

Privilege can lead to unconscious bias. This means the person holds attitudes or ideas about another group but might only see those beliefs as facts. People can have unconscious biases based on age, gender, culture, language, ethnicity — basically any marker that might divide someone into a different group. When privileged members of society hold unconscious biases against members of a minority or underprivileged group, that can create systemic barriers for the underprivileged group.

Bias in Canadian Journalism

People, including journalists, can also be politically biased against certain views. For decades, many newspapers openly leaned left or right (e.g., the left-leaning Globe and the right-leaning Empire newspapers). Today, people are more likely to find openly biased reporting on left-leaning websites such as HuffPost or Salon, or the right- left-centre bias. However, that tends to be largely offset by factual reporting that includes multiple perspectives.

In Canadian journalism, the fact that a majority of journalists are White can lead to biased reporting on minority groups. People can overcome unconscious bias by thinking and talking about it, and especially by listening to people from less privileged backgrounds. People consuming the news can pay extra attention to how certain groups are typically represented by the media and by noticing who is under-represented or misrepresented.

Media Ownership and Convergence

In privately owned media, the interests and biases of the ownership can create bias in the news outlet. Corporations often own different kinds of media (e.g., news websites, radio stations, television networks). That can narrow the range of opinion in the public forum. A dramatic example of this in the United States came in March 2018. Dozens of news anchors from multiple television stations across the country all recited the same speech warning against the dangers of “biased and false news.” Local FOX, ABC and CBS outlets delivered a seemingly independent editorial message about the “troubling trend of irresponsible, one-sided news stories plaguing our country.”

All the stations in question were owned by the Sinclair Broadcast Group. It has close ties to President Donald Trump. The little-known company owns 191 television stations, which all run under different names. Most viewers would have no idea their local anchor was reading a script reflecting a corporation’s right-wing perspective. Trump himself has tweeted that Sinclair is “far superior” to CNN or NBC.

Media Ownership in Canada

Canada has not seen that level of widespread media ownership. However, it does have big corporations that own multiple news outlets. (See also Media Convergence.)

The Torstar Corporation owns the Toronto Star and operates more than 80 newspapers across Canada, including the StarMetro chain of free daily newspapers. The Postmedia Network Canada Corporation owns the National Post newspaper.

It also owns daily newspapers in Alberta, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, Saskatchewan and British Columbia. The corporation, which owns 140 outlets in print and online, is 98-per-cent owned by US hedge funds.

In Atlantic Canada, the Irving Group is well-known for its gas stations and home oil delivery. In New Brunswick, through Brunswick News, it owns every major daily newspaper, most of the French and English weeklies, and some private radio stations.  In 2019, Brunswick News fired its award-winning political cartoonist Michael de Adder — a move he said came in response to an unflattering cartoon he drew about Donald Trump.  Using the Twitter account of one of its newspapers, Brunswick News called that “false information” and said that cancelling de Adder’s contract was not related to the Trump cartoon.

It is unlikely that bias can be completely removed from media-owning corporations or individual journalists. But a public that is media literate can better detect and object to those biases. Journalists who are aware of their own biases and issues around privilege can monitor their own reporting to ensure it relies on facts and balances multiple sides of issues.


----------



## shawn5o (10 Aug 2020)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> For the Cdn viewers of CNN:
> 
> https://www.kusi.com/cnn-requests-kusi-for-local-view-on-the-border-declines-our-reporter-after-finding-out-wall-works/
> 
> ...



If one looks at the CNN tweet about this, it ends with "This is a non-story  hashtag(#)factsfirst emoticon of an apple"

I find CNN to be deceptive and misleading


----------



## Donald H (2 Sep 2020)

The right could possibly own Wikipedia if they concentrated more on their 'spin' job rather than screeching obscenities at the left.

Seems to me that's consistent with all the MSM now, including Fox News.


----------



## shawn5o (8 Sep 2020)

I'm not sure if this article belongs here. An interesting article but it is extremely biased (merde)


*How an overload of riot porn is driving conflict in the streets*
_Weak organization forced right-wing agitators to rely on video and social media. Now they have a machine to spread a narrative of lawless rioting._

Joan Donovan
September 3, 2020
https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/09/03/1007931/riot-porn-right-wing-vigilante-propaganda-social-media/

When Kyle Rittenhouse shot and murdered protesters in Kenosha, Wisconsin, it wasn’t just the act of a lone vigilante; it was a direct consequence of white militia groups’ organizing on social media. 

Since June, right-wing media makers have recorded and circulated videos of violent altercations at protests in cities including New York, Boston, Philadelphia, Los Angeles, and Portland, Oregon. Fed into a media ecosystem with an established bias toward highlighting violence and rioting, the videos have mobilized white militia and vigilante groups to take up arms against Black Lives Matter and “antifa” protesters. This feedback circuit has created a self-fulfilling cycle where white vigilantes feel justified in menacing and physically attacking racial justice protesters—and inspire others to do the same.

…

As a scholar of social movements and media studies, I see an alarming split between the types of content consumed by right-wing reactionaries and left-wing social justice advocates. Given the way media accounts shape public perceptions about protest and define who has recourse to the “legitimate use of violence,” the kinds of content shared within these hyperpartisan media systems play a powerful yet often invisible role in mobilizing white vigilante groups. If social-media companies do not act swiftly to stop calls for violence against protesters, the situation can only get worse.

The rise of riot porn
Since the George Floyd protests, conservative media outlets including Fox News (particularly Tucker Carlson and Sean Hannity), One America News, Glenn Beck’s BlazeTV, and right-wing YouTubers have been covering Black Lives Matter and other left-wing protests daily, specifically highlighting instances of violence, fighting, and property damage. This coverage has come to dominate the right-wing narrative in a new way, flipping the script to suggest that Black protesters—demonstrating because they fear police violence—are themselves a threat to white people.

…

According to analysis I conducted using MediaCloud, a research tool from MIT and Harvard, right-wing media outlets wrote five to six times more articles about Seattle’s “Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone” than did center or left media. What has been a minor storyline among left-wing audiences has been dramatically overemphasized by right-wing media because these protests provided plenty of visceral content for online content creators. In one case, Fox News manipulated photos to make protesters appear more ominous and threatening, while other right-wing outlets falsely reported that the occupying protesters were extorting local businesses.

LINK


----------



## Jarnhamar (8 Sep 2020)

[quote author=shawn5o]
The rise of riot porn
Since the George Floyd protests, conservative media outlets including Fox News (particularly Tucker Carlson and Sean Hannity), One America News, Glenn Beck’s BlazeTV, and right-wing YouTubers have been covering Black Lives Matter and other left-wing protests daily, specifically highlighting instances of violence, fighting, and property damage. This coverage has come to dominate the right-wing narrative in a new way, flipping the script to suggest that Black protesters—*demonstrating because they fear police violence—are themselves a threat to white people.*
[/quote]

More of a threat to everyone, including themselves.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CbVS-UGHiEc


----------



## mariomike (8 Sep 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> More of a threat to everyone, including themselves.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CbVS-UGHiEc



Why did I think of Boots Randolph when I saw that?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zcq_xLi2NGo


----------



## Weinie (8 Sep 2020)

shawn5o said:
			
		

> I'm not sure if this article belongs here. An interesting article but it is extremely biased (merde)
> 
> 
> *How an overload of riot porn is driving conflict in the streets*
> ...



Or maybe they are just 5 or 6 times more concerned about an apparent breakdown in civil society; conservatives being more........conservative


----------



## shawn5o (8 Sep 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> More of a threat to everyone, including themselves.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CbVS-UGHiEc



Thanks Jarnhamar

I like schadenfreude :nod:


----------



## Good2Golf (10 Sep 2020)

shawn5o said:
			
		

> Thanks Jarnhamar
> 
> I like schadenfreude :nod:



This video has a better angle on the event:  https://youtu.be/5Awb89q_9rg

:nod:


----------



## Jarnhamar (10 Oct 2020)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> This video has a better angle on the event:  https://youtu.be/5Awb89q_9rg
> 
> :nod:





> This video has been removed for violating YouTube's policy on violent or graphic content.



Damn


----------



## mariomike (12 May 2021)

Saw this in the non-political Covid discussion,

Messerschmitt said:


> Fox news astoundingly had more factual coverage on the election than CNN. They have gained my respect for that.



If you say so. I read this about the Fox News "factual coverage on the election". They got sued.



> After Trump's defeat in the 2020 presidential election, Fox News host Jeanine Pirro promoted baseless allegations on her program that voting machine company Smartmatic and its competitor Dominion Voting Systems had conspired to rig the election against Trump. Hosts Lou Dobbs and Maria Bartiromo also promoted the allegations on their programs on sister network Fox Business.
> In December 2020, Smartmatic sent a letter to Fox News demanding retractions and threatening legal action, specifying that retractions "must be published on multiple occasions" so as to "match the attention and audience targeted with the original defamatory publications." Days later, each of the three programs aired the same three-minute video segment consisting of an interview with an election technology expert who refuted the allegations promoted by the hosts, responding to questions from an unseen and unidentified man. None of the three hosts personally issued retractions. Smartmatic filed a $2.7 billion defamation suit against the network, the three hosts, Powell and Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani in February 2021. In an April 2021 court brief seeking dismissal of the suit, Fox attorney Paul Clement argued that the network was simply "reporting allegations made by a sitting President and his lawyers."
> In December 2020, Dominion Voting Systems sent a similar letter demanding retractions to Trump attorney Sidney Powell, who had promoted the allegations on Fox programs. On March 26, 2021, Dominion filed a $1.6 billion defamation lawsuit against Fox News, alleging that Fox and some of its pundits spread conspiracy theories about Dominion, and allowed guests to make false statements about the company.





			https://www.mediaite.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Legal-Notice-and-Retraction-Demand-from-Smartmatic-USA-Corp-to-Fox-News.pdf
		










						Voting technology company Smartmatic files $2.7 billion lawsuit against Fox News, Rudy Giuliani and Sidney Powell over 'disinformation campaign'
					

A voting technology company swept up in baseless conspiracy theories about the 2020 election filed a monster $2.7 billion lawsuit on Thursday against Fox News, some of the network's star hosts, and pro-Trump attorneys Rudy Giuliani and Sidney Powell, alleging the parties worked in concert to...




					www.cnn.com
				












						Fox News Lawyers Renew Bid to Get Smartmatic's Billion-Dollar Case Thrown Out of Court: The Real 'Threat' to Democracy Is This Lawsuit
					

Fox News Media on Monday filed a memorandum of law in support of motions to dismiss Smartmatic's billion-dollar defamation lawsuit over the network's 2020 election coverage.




					lawandcrime.com
				






			https://www.washingtonpost.com/media/2020/12/19/lou-dobbs-debunk-fact-check-smartmatic/
		










						Fox News fact-checks Smartmatic voting machine fraud claim in staged video
					

Video presented as interview with election technology expert Eddie Perez airs on shows hosted by Dobbs, Pirro and Bartiromo




					www.theguardian.com
				












						Lou Dobbs Airs Stunning Fact-Check of His Own Election Claims
					

In a stunning segment on Friday, Dobbs aired what amounted to a fact-check of false and misleading claims he himself made.




					www.mediaite.com
				












						Jeanine Pirro's Show Runs Same Fact-Check as Lou Dobbs — At End of Show With Guest Host
					

Justice with Judge Jeanine aired a segment fact-checking false claims made about voting technology company Smartmatic, the same segment Lou Dobbs aired Friday.




					www.mediaite.com
				












						Maria Bartiromo Airs Fact-Check, Adds 'We Will Keep Investigating'
					

Maria Bartiromo has now aired the same fact-check that Lou Dobbs' and Jeanine Pirro's shows had to air in the last few days.




					www.mediaite.com
				












						Days After Smartmatic's Legal Threat, Dominion Voting Systems Follows Suit with Demand Letter to Sidney Powell
					

Dominion Voting Systems took one step towards legal action against Sidney Powell on Wednesday by sending a retraction demand letter, comparing the "Kraken" to “Big Foot" and the "Loch Ness monster."




					lawandcrime.com
				






			https://www.washingtonpost.com/media/2021/03/26/fox-dominion-lawsuit-defamation/


----------



## OceanBonfire (22 Oct 2021)

Well then:



> ...
> 
> According to a 27-page research document, Twitter found a “statistically significant difference favouring the political right wing” in all the countries except Germany. Under the research, a value of 0% meant tweets reached the same number of users on the algorithm-tailored timeline as on its chronological counterpart, whereas a value of 100% meant tweets achieved double the reach. On this basis, the most powerful discrepancy between right and left was in Canada (Liberals 43%; Conservatives 167%), followed by the UK (Labour 112%; Conservatives 176%). Even excluding top government officials, the results were similar, the document said.
> 
> ...











						Twitter admits bias in algorithm for rightwing politicians and news outlets
					

Home feed promotes rightwing tweets over those from the left, internal research finds




					www.theguardian.com
				












						Examining algorithmic amplification of political content on Twitter
					

As we shared earlier this year, we believe it’s critical to study the effects of machine learning (ML) on the public conversation and share our findings publicly.




					blog.twitter.com


----------



## mariomike (9 Mar 2022)

Saw this in the Ukraine thread. Replying here.



rmc_wannabe said:


> He said its a cultural thing that most people his age tuned into the Nightly News and had the likes of Walter Cronkite stating facts about what was available at the time, especially during the Vietnam War.



You mentioned Walter Cronkite.

Brace for this,



> The man that single handily saved the NVA/VC from their Tet debacle.





rmc_wannabe said:


> So when you have RT or TASS stating that there are "Nationalist, drug-addled, Nazis" governing Ukraine and Older Russians eating it up; it doesn't surprise me any more than seeing older North Americans taking FOX News or Rebel Media as fact.



 🧠


----------



## Brad Sallows (15 Apr 2022)

Visual graph of blog connections (links).

Click "Settings" in upper left to access additional information.

[Add: Why is it interesting? It reveals something about which content is thought worthwhile, and by whom.]


----------



## RangerRay (27 Aug 2022)

I never liked “The job of the newspaper is to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable.”  









						Comforting the Comfortable and Afflicting the Afflicted
					

Progressives are so wedded to the idea of being rebels that they don’t realize they are part of the establishment.




					gfile.thedispatch.com


----------



## Edward Campbell (27 Aug 2022)

RangerRay said:


> I never liked “The job of the newspaper is to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable.”
> 
> 
> 
> ...


'The role of journalists,' some publisher said, many decades in the past, 'is to fill the empty spaces between the advertisements.' As the media looks for ways to survive in this particular _information age_ that notion may become more and more important, as may understanding the very nature of advertisement.


----------



## QV (6 Dec 2022)

You should check out the latest Munk Debate on YouTube about mainstream media. "Be it resolved, don't trust mainstream media."

The link won't post for some reason.


----------

