Perhaps my perception is incorrect, or my personal "radar" needs calibration. I am certain to find out from your feedback. I believe that there is an ongoing right-wing bias on CBC's "The National" . I do not refer to the "hard news" stories", but to the "soft news'"and opinions shown on the program. Let's start with Wendy Mesley's "In Depth Report" broadcast on Feb.1st, and available on their website. The segment is introduced by the host/newsreader, Mr. Mansbridge, who starts off by mentioning "political attack ads"; that there are no limits on pre-campaign spending; "that your tax dollars could be why we're seeing more of them"; and, "which parties think that's a problem, and which parties think that's fine". However, the question posed to the viewers by Ms. Mesley is, "should we stop bankrolling federal parties?". The segment then concentrates on recent attack ads. "Taxpayer dollars could exlain a big chunk of them". Emphasis on the word "could". I would think that the importation of American republican campaign strategists by the conservative party "could" also explain the ads, and would be considered by many as the prime reason that we are now reduced to american-style attack ads. The public funding rebate to federal arties is mentioned, as a "large subsidy of taxpayer dollars". Alas, no mention is made of the cost to the taxpayer of tax deductions for contributtions to federal parties. an important ommission, as this also consists of "taxpayer dollars", as are all tax breaks provided to some at the expense of all. One must note that the topic of public funding of parties re-surfaced on Jan. 12th, when, in an interview with The National Post, Mr. Harper indicated that it was his desire to cut off direct public funding of political parties. It was followed up by an article in The Globe&Mail on Jan. 21st by Tom Flanagan, which indicated that he favoured the cutting of public funding and the return of Corporate Donations to party funding. As a professional, Ms. Mesley [and the CBC] would be well aware of these two items in the press. Ms. Mesly then proceeds to 'interview" Mr. Flanagan, who is given free rein to to re-express the same opinions already given in the G&M, and already known to the public. While Mr. Flanagan is certainly entitled to his views, his was the only interview on the segment. and, of course, only represents the the perspective of the extreme right. The ND's and the Greens were ignored, and theie positions never considered. There is no mention that "cracking the numbers" [a CBC term] also shows that if we eliminated the subsidy [tax refund] on donations, the savings would provide up to $5 of funding for each vote received, at no extra cost to the taxpayer. To sum up, the segment appears to be constructed to elicit a negative opinion on the public funding of federal parties. It contains pejorative and indefinite terms - "stop bankrolling"; "subsidy tap"; "could explain"; "probably promoting"; "wean the parties"; etc. The segment ends with a hearty chuckle from Mr. Mansbridge, when Ms. Mesley theorizes "maybe they just have nobody who knows", in reference to the Liberal party. "Accuracy, Fairness, Balance, Impartiality, Integrity" is part of the CBC credo, and I do not believe that this "in depth" report followed any of those tenets. My second example is National Post writer Mr. R. Murphy, who occupies the only spot on "The National' reserved for opinion. Mr. Murphy is well known for his conservative-leaning opinions, and he is entitled to them. What I question is why no on-air reposte or rebuttal is allowed, when he makes claims such as, that Canadians, as a people, "hate Americans", when it was perfectly clear that they only loathed the Bush administration. Of course, Mr. Murphy dropped that when Mr. Obama was elected. Now he talks of a "love affair with Obama". We are not permitted to ask, "do we still hate Americans, Mr. Murphy?" His ranting about coalition governments being somehow "undemocratic" was not subject to questioning or debate, and indeed, that view was rncouraged by Mr. Mansbridge during the election coverage. To compound this, he often pops up on "The Panel" and on election coverage as well, always with his right-wing perspective. Balance? Fairness? Where is the integrity of a national broadcast news program that allows for only one opinion, and a right-wing one at that? The third example would be, of course, Mr. Mansbridges's "panel" It includes a conservative writer [another NatPost alumni], who favours 'market solutions; and a former PC strategist who is chairman of a olling firm. I would submit that having a conservative pollster as a political pundit is a contradiction to the terms of Fairness, Integrity etc. that CBC News claims to hold so dear. In fairness, the third member of the panel, as a writer for the Toronto Star, would be considered to be center-left by conservative partisans. However, it is appears that she is on the panel for her expertise on Quebec and it's issues, and not because she is the most intelligent person on that set, which she clearly is. Those are my opinions and observations on the topic. It is my hope that those on this forum might wish to make their own observastions on the topic, or debate mine . Thanks, Birdfeeder.
Perceived Right-wing Bias On CBC's The National
Thu, 2011-02-17 16:01#1
Perceived Right-wing Bias On CBC's The National