Media Bias [Merged]

[Kirkhill]

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.

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]

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]

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]

Public broadcasting / publically-funded, competitive market-based broadcasting.

In the eyes of many, as "public" as it gets in Canada is TVO.

 

[Brad Sallows]

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]

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]

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]

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]

: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]

...the thread did make it to 33 pages before Godwin kicked-in. Not bad. 

 

[The Bread Guy]

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]

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]

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.

Harper's Tories aren't even the runners up; that honour goes to another Liberal regime, under Jean Chretien.

The analysis of meetings from which the public was barred — known as going in camera — shows MPs deliberated in secret for an average of close to two hours a day during Martin's first and only majority session of Parliament in 2004.

According to figures provided by the Library of Parliament, committees spent close to 215 hours meeting in camera, an average of one hour and 56 minutes a day over the 111 days of that short parliamentary session.

The session, which ran from February to May 2004, is notable for being the last time the Liberals held a majority in Parliament. Martin succeeded Chretien as Grit leader at the end of 2003.

He inherited a scathing report from the auditor general into the sponsorship scandal. Martin appointed Justice John Gomery to head up a public inquiry into how the sponsorship program was handled.

The auditor general's report also triggered an inquiry before the Commons public accounts committee. Figures show public accounts spent 18 hours in camera — half that of the joint parliamentary committee on national security, which spent more than 36 hours in secret deliberations.

But MPs on the public accounts committee never got to finish their work because the Grits used their majority to shut down hearings weeks before Canadians went to the polls.

The Liberals lost their majority in the federal election of June 2004.

The second-most secretive session for parliamentary committees was the one immediately before Martin's short-lived Grit majority. During Chretien's final 2002-03 parliamentary session, MPs spent an average of one hour and 12 minutes a day in camera over the session's 408 days.

The Conservatives occupy third place on the in-camera list ....

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. 

So, how does one go about finding the answer?

The most obvious route would be by checking in with those who were on the Hill at the time -- particularly those who sat across the aisle from the Liberals during the Chretien and Martin majorities.

Thus far, I've not heard a single Conservative MP make the claim that the Liberal government was just as heavy-handed when it came to squelching debate during the days when they held the majority at committee. Given the increasing criticism that this government has faced for doing so, you'd think that at least one veteran from the Reform/Canadian Alliance/pre-2004 Conservative days might have thought to mention it.

As for the New Democrats, while no formal survey has been undertaken, those who have experienced opposition life under past majorities have made it clear that the current practice -- wherein government members automatically move to clear the room when an opposition member attempts to put forward a motion for debate -- is, as far as they can recall, unprecedented ....

Discuss

 

[DBA]

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]

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]

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]

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



There’s nothing I have less respect for than someone who attacks others on-line but hides behind anonymity or doesn’t disclose their political affiliations or relationships.

It’s one thing for all the  clowns that leave moronic and hateful messages on here or Tweet them to me or others but it’s a whole different deal when it’s a political party official or a news organization employee.

Case in point is this Tweet I saw from Sun News producer Rikki Ratliff who outed a CBC employee bashing the Sun’s Ezra Levant:

“No surprise really this guy works for the Mother Corp”



And sure enough, when I checked his Twitter profile, no mention of where he worked (see here) so I asked him to confirm if this was him:



No response so far…

 

[JorgSlice]

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
Article Link

File # 2012
Tue Oct 02 16:09:00 PDT 2012
Dear CBC,

It is extremely disappointing to see CBC’s Chief Political Correspondent, Terry Milewski, write such an inflammatory, inaccurate and sensationalized article about the RCMP. I am writing to you directly but, given the broadcast of your information, it would be a disservice to the public to limit mine.

Mr. Milewski states that E-Division’s Gender Based Harassment Report was supposed to remain confidential and kept quiet but it was first spotted two weeks ago and there were leaked copies. The truth is that the Commanding Officer of the BC RCMP informed an entire conference room full of reporters at the Radio Television Digital News Association on April 14th, 2012 that he had asked for this report to be done. He told reporters that he would make it available once it was complete but only after employees had a chance to see it first. The report was posted on the RCMP’s internal website, open to 30,000 employees, available through ATIP, and reporters who had recently called about it were being sent copies when they requested it.

I asked the author of the report, Ms. Smith if she received any calls from the reporter but she did not. I checked with our media desk but no calls from Mr. Milewski were received. It is no wonder his article is inaccurate as he seems to have done very little, if any, research. In fact, Mr. Milewski described the author of the report, Ms. Simmie Smith, as a "he" on several occasions before a corrected version was posted. Based on Mr. Milewski’s biased and erroneous article, it would be difficult for the most critical thinking Canadian to form any opinion other than the one Mr. Milewski is pitching.

Fortunately, many journalists have called - from journalism students to a national wire agency. They learned that the RCMP wanted the absolute truth to come out to enable us to address the issue. We were very aware that some journalists would capitalize on our forthright and transparent approach although surprised that one would be so inaccurate as to accuse us of hiding this report. In fact, most reporters acknowledged the transparency and the sincere effort by the RCMP. An RCMP Inspector has conducted several media interviews on this topic including a live radio talk show. This would’ve been available to Mr. Milewski as well.

Mr. Milewski cites examples from the 1920’s in his article. What’s concerning is that, if his article is not corrected, 90 years from now some may see his opinion as factual when writing their stories.

You can view the CBC literary "masterpiece" here: Article Link

 

[Journeyman]

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]

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.