Smash the Ceebs

82 posts / 0 new
Last post
6079_Smith_W

Lard Tunderin Jeezus wrote:

Quote:
That said, I don't think the CBC should just be broadcasting material that is in line with my politics and my values, and I think it would be a bit arrogant of me to expect that.

I think you miss the point completely. The CBC primarily serves as a government propaganda engine today. By the CBC's own calculations, it provides 75% of the total speaking time alloted for politicians to the minority Harper government, a government supported by 32% of the population, and elected by less than 38%. The other three parties, representing 62% of us, get to divide the remaining 25% of airtime between them.

Speaking of calling people on misrepresentation,  you are simply twisting numbers and lying. I looked at that study last time you trotted out those numbers, and if I remember correctly it stated that 75 percent of the coverage was of the government. It did not say that coverage came from the PMO's office, nor even that it was positive or negative. 

Frankly I would expect that sort of breakdown of coverage from any news organization. Since the government holds the purse strings and has far more decision-making power than the opposition I should think we would pay the most critical attention to what they are doing.

For that matter, I wouldn't want the media to be a mouthpiece for the opposition either. That is not their job.

If you want to believe what you believe, fine. But please don't try to pass off lies expecting we wil be so gullible as tol believe them.

And again, I find it odd that the most libertarian conservative argument of all - I don't want to pay for stuff that doesn't serve me - is the one that is being trotted out in these CBC-bashing threads.

(edit)

I can up that argument.... how about my opinion is more important because I contribute more in taxes and GST, therefore I should have more say in what is done with it?

Lard Tunderin Jeezus Lard Tunderin Jeezus's picture

You should perhaps take another look at the study before accusing me of lying.

I await an apology.

6079_Smith_W

I read the study before I called you on it the first time. 

That's why I consider you forewarned.

Slumberjack

6079_Smith_W wrote:
And again, I find it odd that the most libertarian conservative argument of all - I don't want to pay for stuff that doesn't serve me - is the one that is being trotted out in these CBC-bashing threads.

Do try and avoid whipping yourself up into a lather with this libertarian comparison, would you? The minimum demand here is a sense of balance amidst a surging sea of mainstream corporate media. Since the CBC has proven themselves incapable and uninterested in reflecting the diverse political opinions of Canadians who collectively pay their salaries, the smashing proposal being put forward carries with it the hope that distributing even a portion of the existing funds scattershot across the alternate media universe in this country might at least give those silenced opinions, commentaries and voices an opportunity to finally be heard.

al-Qa'bong

I`ve been involved in one of those scattered media asteroids for many years, and have to tell you that, while they present alternative voices, the voices are but faint whispers among the giant media constellations out there.  The CBC at least affords the opportunity to create enough critical mass to allow some of these voices to be heard.

Slumberjack

al-Qa'bong wrote:
The CBC at least affords the opportunity to create enough critical mass to allow some of these voices to be heard.

Problem is, they counterbalance their occasional 'generosity at the office' approach to fair coverage and exposure with wall to wall corporate talking head representatives during the other 99% available airtime.

Lard Tunderin Jeezus Lard Tunderin Jeezus's picture

6079_Smith_W, I gave you a chance to reconsider, and you weren't up to it. Oh well.

You have completely misrepresented my arguments, and have slandered me to boot.

As an example - something you seem to think you don't need to provide - I never claimed not to want to pay for something that doesn't serve me.

But I don't wish to have my tax dollars used to attack my interests, and I don't want my tax dollars used to subvert democracy.

al-Qa'bong

@ Slumberjack

The fault for that probably lies more with the Harper government than with the CBC itself  (We`re finding the same sort of interference where I work, with direct meddling by Brad Wall`s Alberta Party in the affairs of the workplace).

It isn`t cast in stone that things will remain like this forever.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

So again it seems to me we are talking about how we define the terms.  I think that as a government funded organization the CBC has the potential to be either a public or a state broadcaster.  I want a public broadcaster and giving us new drama programs extolling the virtues of deep integration will not cut it for me.  Giving seven figure incomes to "media stars" to piss on anything done by the government is hardly included in my definition of public broadcaster.  

6079_Smith_W

Slumberjack wrote:

 

Do try and avoid whipping yourself up into a lather with this libertarian comparison, would you? The minimum demand here is a sense of balance amidst a surging sea of mainstream corporate media. Since the CBC has proven themselves incapable and uninterested in reflecting the diverse political opinions of Canadians who collectively pay their salaries, the smashing proposal being put forward carries with it the hope that distributing even a portion of the existing funds scattershot across the alternate media universe in this country might at least give those silenced opinions, commentaries and voices an opportunity to finally be heard.

 

haha

Hey, I'm not the one suggesting we break it down to coverage supporting the federal parties, based on vote spread - as if that would mean coverage that truly reflects the range of opinion in this country.

But I'd love to see how a directive like that would go down in a newsroom, especially fi you have one reporter covering a specific beat. Would the governing party get the lede and break down  pyramid style based on percentage? Would we do it by seat count or popular vote? How much would a photo count against column inches? They say a picture is worth a thousand words, but idoes it matter if it is black and white or colour, or above the fold?

And as for paying the taxes that goes toward someone's wages giving you or me the right to walk in to a broadcaster, or a hospital, or a school, or an engineering yard, and dictate how we think someoshould be doing his or her job, I'll leave that to someone more edicated in union protocol to answer.

Not to meniton that it begs the question of whether those who live below the line where they pay taxes should have any say at all.

Lard Tunderin Jeezus Lard Tunderin Jeezus's picture

Once again, you completely distort what I have said. Perhaps the fact that I illustrate my points with related facts and figures is too much for you to cope with; thus your need to mock and twist.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

The CBC is in the business of manufacturing consent and it does it well. However given what is trying to get people to consent too I think it is not in the public interest anymore.  The neo-cons (both Lib and Con) have spent almost a generation appointing corporate honcho types who have hired middle management who believes their role is to be a better MSM television station.  BC citizens are still suffering the effects of Carole Taylor's prescriptions for economic health.  She was one of the prime architects of the CBC's descent from a marginally successful public broadcaster into a clone of the other corporate controlled media.  The coup has already happened and it is time to change the channel on this era and somehow restore or reinvent the CBC in the public not state mold.

thorin_bane

YOU want to see funny, even the "bastion" of left that was once CBC radio 1, they now have not one but 3 segments in the morning devoted to business. This mornings talk: Corporate tax cut vs personal tax cuts. Which is best to improve the economy....umm how about public investment dollars...nope not on the menu. This is what we are talking about. They aren't representing 18% at all. Or even the 11% that mostly reside in quebec. 

 

How did it get to the point that the only debate between 3 economists (one who is a business prof at the university and already does a half hour radio show on a private radio channel-also never got back to me after I demolished his laffer curve and rightwing horsecrap.) Where the debate is more personal income tax cut or more business tax cut....umm maybe we should bring the gst back up and reinvest the points at say the local level to try and get much needed local spending on projects we are more intimately aware of.

Le T Le T's picture

I don't know why I didn't forsee a thread with "smash" in the title leading to an all out pissing match.

Slumberjack

Just a difference of opinion Le T.  Some people have grown weary of beseeching the right wing zeitgeist on bended knee.

Maysie Maysie's picture

Le T is right. It's possible to have a difference of opinion without it turning into a pissing match.

George Victor

al-Qa'bong wrote:

I`ve been involved in one of those scattered media asteroids for many years, and have to tell you that, while they present alternative voices, the voices are but faint whispers among the giant media constellations out there.  The CBC at least affords the opportunity to create enough critical mass to allow some of these voices to be heard.

This was the most telling and accurate post of the sparring match.  What can I say, aQ?  When yer right yer right?

Caissa

So what are the potential models?

CBC,NPR, Community Radio, a fourth model?

6079_Smith_W

@ Caissa #68

I don't see a problem with all of the above at the same time. Believe it or not, it is not an either-or question. Competition only means less if you think in terms of scarcity - in business and in media. The fact is if you start working on more intelligent and effective media it is going to mean more and better information, and more people working to gather it.

But the bottom line is it needs to be relevant and supported. If you have ever tried selling advertising or soliciting sponsorship, you will know that is a crucial piece of the puzzle that cannot be ignored. Like it or not, it won't work otherwise.

As I posted recently in another thread, if the money and support is there to finance a number of full-colour glossy national magazine on porcelain dolls there should be the support there for media on more relevant issues.

 

 

6079_Smith_W

Well it is a serious question on a number of fronts. 

I realize that "smash" might be just a bit of hyperbolae, and LeT may not actually want the CBC dismantled and auctioned off for scrap, but it is a word that tends to elicit a reaction. It is also a word which which calls for an explanation, because are plenty of people who do want to smash it for real, including the prime minister.

I respect other people's opinions that the CBC might not be worth the money they spend on it, though I strongly disagree. More importantly,  I think the notion that you can break it down and it will be replaced by a broadcaster or broadcasters more in line with your ideals or mine isn't based in reality.

The fact is there are enough people trying to build alternative media. Really, the means are there right now, and nothing is likely to improve on that front if the CBC is gone.

But there is plenty that will be gone if it is dismantled, or its mandate changed. 

(edit)

French language programming in our neck of the woods is the first big one I can think of.

Le T Le T's picture

I guess the big question is whether radio and television will exist in 20 years. If most MSM has gone Internet then i think that the points that people are using to argue in favour of status quo (or that of 30 years ago) loose some traction.

6079_Smith_W

Le T wrote:

I guess the big question is whether radio and television will exist in 20 years. If most MSM has gone Internet then i think that the points that people are using to argue in favour of status quo (or that of 30 years ago) loose some traction.

I'm pretty sure radio and television will exist in some form, and I wouldn't write off print just yet. 

But the meat of it IMO is not just broadcasting and intrastructure (across the nation in both official languages, in regions that other media do not cover, and internationally), it is also paying for the work to be done - in-depth investigative work, keeping bureaus open, freedom of information requests, court challenges, and yes, even art and entertainment, 

Some of that does not change regardless of the latest model. Good thing we have a big  cash cow with a hockey stick  to help pay for it, eh?

6079_Smith_W

And here we go again...

I just turned on the noon show and  the call-in prigram has been given over to some mouthpiece from Democracy Watch.

Typical right-wing propaganda.

George Victor

Are you implying that we would be lost in the wilderness without the reportage of the paid in the MSM , 6079? Surprised 

6079_Smith_W

George Victor wrote:

Are you implying that we would be lost in the wilderness without the reportage of the paid in the MSM , 6079? Surprised 

No, but there are some aspects of the work which require, time, money, risk, experience and professional standards. Not to say that there aren't non-paid journalists and investigators who can do some of that, but there are plenty of stories which probably would not have seen the light of day without the resources of a large news organization.

As I said upthread, you don't need to take away from one media group to build up another.

 

George Victor

Oh, I fully agree.  I was joshing. :(

Lard Tunderin Jeezus Lard Tunderin Jeezus's picture

Quote:
As I said upthread, you don't need to take away from one media group to build up another.

But I want to take the CBC away from the likes of Kevin O'Leary, Rex Murphy and Don Cherry, in order to build a public broadcaster that represents a broad cross-section of Canadian POVs.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Lard Tunderin Jeezus wrote:

Quote:
As I said upthread, you don't need to take away from one media group to build up another.

But I want to take the CBC away from the likes of Kevin O'Leary, Rex Murphy and Don Cherry, in order to build a public broadcaster that represents a broad cross-section of Canadian POVs.

 

Kiss

al-Qa'bong

Any broadcaster that purports to represent a broad cross-section of Canadian points of view must necessarily include the voice of Don Cherry.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

al-Qa'bong wrote:

Any broadcaster that purports to represent a broad cross-section of Canadian points of view must necessarily include the voice of Don Cherry.

Used to be our public broadcaster would talk about peace at Christmas but not any more. Seems to be merely another day to manufacture consent for the brutal imperialist agenda.  Cherry is a really bad imitation of Bob Hope and he is being paid by the public purse to a promote a pro-war anti-Islamist world view.  Why?

Quote:

All the trimmings

MacKay and Oda did the turkey-carving honours at their last stop while the soldiers were serenaded by St-Arneau.

Cherry has been a strong proponent of the soldiers serving in Afghanistan since the war began and Canada's mission started in 2002, using his first intermission segment to honour fallen Canadians.

In recent years, the final Coach's Corner segment before Remembrance Day has ended in a roll call of all the Canadian troops who died over the past year, a list that also sometimes includes police and RCMP officers.

Cherry and HNIC co-host Ron MacLean visited troops who were about to ship off for duty at the military base in Petawawa, Ont., in October.

Cherry has most recently been in the news for his infamous anti-left wing comments at Toronto city council during Mayor Rob Ford's swearing-in ceremony on Dec. 8.

Cherry was Ford's guest during the ceremony.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/12/25/sp-cherry-afghanistan.html

melovesproles

I could handle a pro-war hawk like Cherry being on the public broadcaster and even interrupting hockey talk to go on a militarist tirade if even once in a blue moon one of his colleagues provided some balance and called him on it.  I'd love to see him asked his opinion about the revelation in wikileaks that American contractors are procuring young Afghan Bacha boys for their business associates in the country.  Doesn't that make you proud Don?  I'd like to see him sputter off about that on air.  So Don how many more billion dollars and dead soldiers should we expend helping the Americans buy child prostitutes for the people they want to guard their pipeline? Cuz your real blue collar Don, real salt of the earth... Yeah sure.

 

Pages