CBC Bashing

I would change the wording of point e) A conservative mindset that authentically does NOT understand the concept of media bias, or the strategy of seeking balance through the airing of multiple viewpoints." to the following:

"A conservative mindset that FULLY UNDERSTANDS (AND SUPPORTS) THE RAMIFICATIONS OF ELIMINATING the airing of multiple viewpoints."

I think the CBC should be held up to criticism and that all its biases should be pointed out. Although I don't think I'll be able to make it, I have no problem at all with the topic being discussed.

I agree with you that there is some very effective and critical coverage on the CBC - radio in particular.

THe only distinction I see is between those who think it is worth fighting to take public broadcasting back, and those who have given up on it. 

And sorry, I think if the battle is so desperate that we have to refrain from taking a fair look at things then we have already lost.

(edit)

Scratch that.....

I just went to the website, and it looks like that discussion is specifically about biases against Israel and conservatives. Talk about irony.

A fair look is one thing, but a hatchet job is quite another.

THis festival website is worth looking at, actually. Check out the rest of the programme, and the sponsors:

http://www.freethinkingfilmfest.ca/

Surely you jest. It's all ultra-right-wing, extreme Zionist, Québec-bashing, neocon (National Citizens' Coalition etc.) garbage. I'm a little uncertain as to why anyone would even link to such shit here, quite frankly.

i agree with smith in the sense that in order to get a pulse for who/what we're fighting against, you have to see what their perspective/arguments are....

what i'm still perplexed by is that people still

a)buy the argument the cbc is "biased" or "left wing"...there's a staple of right wing commentators and perspectives on the cbc.  But i guess when most of the elites are THAT far to the right....just like the way the republicans chide dem's for being socialst when they're just a moderately less extreme group of extreme capitalists  

b)people can't see the obvious, that when it's cbc's direct competition trying to go after them, it's about money/market share not about bias or anything else.  Too bad years of for profit news has left so many people too ignorant to see this.

6079:"I think the CBC should be held up to criticism and that all its biases should be pointed out. Although I don't think I'll be able to make it, I have no problem at all with the topic being discussed.

I agree with you that there is some very effective and critical coverage on the CBC - radio in particular.

THe only distinction I see is between those who think it is worth fighting to take public broadcasting back, and those who have given up on it. "
------------------
The CBC gets less support, per capita, than any other public broadcaster in the advanced world - not counting our neighbour to the south. Funding shortages have forced it to give up on most local broadcasting, although it is now intending to restore it to the Waterloo Region.

Radio One, Toronto, is the only radio station to catch when waking in the morning - no bloody commercials - and the only one to listen to at night. Now it's again the Massey Lectures on "Ideas" at 9 p.m.

You should listen in sometime, 6079. You would then know enough to not parrot the servile minds of functionaries for propagandistic lobbies and government functionaries. If they and their ilk are successful, then you are only left with the programs that private stations can justify to their sponsors.

It is so disheartening to see babblers piddling themselves at the prospect of the destruction of public radio...in the name of freedom.

In some respects we can liken CBC radio to those obscure places on the internet where for the moment, people are free to discuss practically anything...but still in CBC radio's case, all within acceptable boundaries of course which are never to be crossed. TV is a different matter entirely because of its lingering potential to reach into many more homes and minds. Here is where discussion has to adopt the expected look-alike conformity by reading from a universal script. Anything else would constitute a glaring contradiction to an expensive information campaign which has been decades in the making. Once a certain level of homogeny had been achieved through relentless pressure to conform to the existing norms, as with the case of CBC TV's journalism, commentary, punditry, and what not, where they have the distinction of voluntarily surpassing all expectations through an ever expanding lineup of sycophants and stooges; all that remains to warrant the attention of hostile business interests consists of an empty shell of a costly social program, providing little in the way of benefit to the general public that cannot already be replicated and distributed by private industry through numerous channels.  As much as we might chaffe at the prospect of paying twice to observe live mind-fucking in progress; through pay deductions at source and through our cable TV and satellite subscriptions; I suppose we should at least be open to testimonials from people who insist on re-introducing their imaginary friend who appears as a threadbare, see through security blanket.

Gaian. 

I strongly support the CBC. And yes, no one is exempt from criticism. 

Ask before you open fire next time, okay?

Not quite everyone.  You're response though...can we can talk about that?

Sj: :"...a costly social program, providing little in the way of benefit to the general public that cannot already be replicated and distributed by private industry through numerous channels. As much as we might chaffe at the prospect of paying twice to observe LIVE MIND-FUCKING (my emphasis)in progress; through pay deductions at source and through our cable TV and satellite subscriptions; I suppose we should at least be open to testimonials from people who insist on re-introducing their imaginary friend who appears as a threadbare, see through security blanket".

----

The conservative's motto:...we must cut taxes, and avoid copulation of our minds by sources not paid for by GM, GE et al. :)

Be my guest - refer them to the "Who We Are" page:

Then look at the glowing tributes by Islamophobic provocateurs.

You would refer friends to this site so they can make up their own minds? You're afraid you'll come across as biased if you simply tell them the truth? You would accept a ticket and attend this obscenity?

If you must, refer them to this classic reference text:

i'm sorta with smith on this one.  i've never gone to a right wing event but i read right wing newspapers, think tank reports, books, etc. for the same purpose.  I can't criticize something until i've read it.  And you really need to see where the other side is coming from if you're going to have any chance of arguing against them.  

Chomsky has used this tactic with great success.  "fine, let's take the example YOU mentioned..." (uses the persons own logic to describe how they don't really believe what they're claiming...)

Indeed. You have to know who, and what, you're up against. Earlier this year anti-racists in Ottawa succeeded in getting the Ottawa Folklore Centre to stop selling tickets to their events. Regrettably, the independent bookstore, Collected Works, subsequently stepped-in to fill the void.

If we want to get right down to it Unionist, I'm not the person who posted content (not that I have any problem with that if it is done in the interest of legitimate criticism, as you did).

For that matter, I think the opening poster sees some things differently than I do, but I did not get the impression that s/he was speaking in unreserved support of the event, but rather passing it on in good faith.

Personally, I'm thankful that it was posted, regardless of the motive, because I do like to know what these organizations are up to, and I doubt I would have heard about it had it not been posted here.

I get your point Unionist, but I think as with all things we need to keep it in context. No, I don't think we should get distracted by going through Perry's platform in detail, unless there was some valid reason to do so. 

That is to say, I wouldn't want to waste time on it needlessly, but I have no problem discussing it (presumably with progressive analysis) in as much detail as is needed -  if it is relevant to an issue we are discussing.

Back to this issue - You might also notice that in my first posts I thought it MIGHT be legitimate, until I went and visited the site. I found it quite interesting, and I posted a link - brief, and with just enough info to warn away anyone who might not want to see the offending matter. I did not start poring over the material in detail.

In short, it was there for anyone interested, and anyone else could leave it, and get on with the discussion.

We don't want to monopolize discussion with irrelevant and non-progressive matters, after all. Short of calling in a moderator to make a ruling on whether such posts are allowed, perhaps we should agree to disagree and move on before the threat of distraction becomes even more of a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Far be it for me to pile on the CBC, but can anyone tell me when I might begin to receive their digital tv signal? I called their local affiliate in Windsor, where someone, somehow, transferred me to Heritage Canada, where I was punted to The National Broadcasting Palace in Toronto, where someone there (who didn't seem to give a rat's ass) brushed me off, while blaming the CRTC...meanwhile, I'm receiving PBS crystal-clear...from Detroit!

It certainly makes a CBC listener mighty uncomfortable, not understanding that one is being taken in by the "forces of oppression," and advised to seek safety in commercial radio. "After all, for many people here the CBC itself is nothing other than a mouthpiece for the forces of oppression."

All that blather from the Massey Lectures on "Ideas" last night, followed by an interview with an award-winning African American poet, all of it broadcast on CBC and National Public Radio and around the world...We are being duped by the forces of oppression, and have only to turn to the nearest commercial radio station for ...commercials, verifying the authenticity of our consumerist hearts.

When not turning to a neo-fascist group for explanation of that nasty public broadcasting company's evil intent. :)

And I do hope that the tone of this defence of Canada's public broadcaster is acceptable.

Double Post

Autoworker, you have to scan, or re-scan your TV.  If you can get digital signals over the air from the US stations, then you can get the digital signal from CBC Windsor.  I believe the re-scan usually means people pick up the signal on channel 9.1.

I believe the digital signal is supposed to be stronger and give better picture quality.  

No Sj, the majority of their stuff, like the majority of all TV, is for the great "oppressed", to borrow a term from this thread. Never watch the majority of the offerings. But boy do they ever manage to uncover some great stuff that makes the Cons squirm eh? Like that female RCMP officer (corporal) who had to go on leave of absence after 16 years of exposure to lecherous male cops? She took it to the CBC. Wonder why. And they DO try harder to produce "made in Canada" than the others.

And radio? I've just unearthed the 50 years of Massey Lectures...almost all audio-available on CBC.ca. Wonderful stuff. I can listen to that, while you fuss with the TV dial.

By the way, have you considered the idea that your dependency on the scatological might be related to your TV habits?

From its inception, CBC has been a massive psy-op on the Canadian population, designed to keeps the English and French populace pacified while the wealth of the country gets carried off by our colonial and corporate masters.  Or provide the rationalizations and 'embedded' propaganda for whatever military misadventures the Washington (or Whitehall) consensus demands.  Can the CBC ever challenge the government?  Has it ever challenged the relationship between the establishment and the colony's subjects?  The CBC has no more editorial range than the Globe and Mail and we are not taxed for the operation of the Globe and Mail.  The best I can say about the CBC is that it is pleasant and sometimes interesting.  But it has always been the government's puppet on a string.

If the CBC gets de-funded I have no doubt that other more authentic and useful voices will emerge (eg labour-sponsored media). 

The Friendly Giant? Embedded propaganda? Say it isn't so!

Although on the subject of children's stories, I am not sure the only thing holding the alternative media back is the omnipotent, authoritarian hand of Mothercorp, and that our PM is just waiting until he starves it into submission so that he can redistribute funding to those authentic voices.

For that matter, I think we have alternative media which are alive and well right now. They aren't waiting to emerge. The best way to support them is to support them, not use them as a foil against public broadcasting.

Fair enough Gaian, I do in fact harbour some doubt as to what exactly might emerge to replace a dismantled CBC.  I don't have a crystal ball but given how little I view/listen to CBC I am willing to take my chances.  The CBC tv channel has gone digital signal only here and I haven't replaced the analog TV set yet, can't say I've missed having the CBC.

The best I can say for the CBC is that it is a 'uniquely Canadian Voice' in a world of media choice.  Since its inception in 1936 the CBC has been an important source of information and entertainment for Canadians.  The CBC has also been an effective vehicle for the Canadian government to enforce a national identity within and outside this country.

I think it is worth looking at the origins of the CBC to understand its purpose and I fully intend to hit the local library for a book on the subject.

In the meantime, I think the CBC is biased towards the government, capital and the establishment, and it is of dubious use to the left.  With the million-channel internet I don't need the CBC anymore for information or entertainment.

http://www.w4uvh.net/dxlatest.txt

Okay I hit the CBC Radio website http://www.cbc.ca/radio/ to check the schedule and, haha, first up on Listen to Past Episodes is a replay of The Current from Nov. 10:

:shakehead:

I don't see what the CBC news division is doing that is not being covered in the Globe and Mail.

I'm saying, it is a mistake for the left in this country to hitch its wagon to the CBC.  We will always be disappointed. 

Possibly Stephen Harper's government wants to take down the CBC because he sees it as a Liberal Party construct designed to forge a national identity distinct from the media behemoth to the south which Canadians would otherwise tune to, essential to keep the two solitudes together, etc.  I get that (for the last century), but we're beyond that in the million channel internet and so far this century the CBC has been functioning as a government propaganda tool.  Arguably, it has always done the government of the day's bidding.

All news is subjective - more so today than ever.  All news platforms have an agenda.  The CBC is not the voice of Canada's left.

I don't think it is that specific, and I think he is a nationalist of sorts - but his idea of Canada is quite different.

I think he simply wants to control his message and silence all critical voices. Remember the press gallery boycott? Pre-submitted questions? Hand-picking the media they give interviews to? Pre-scripting everything down to the ties people wear, and muzzling anyone who might say anything off-message?

Of the mainstream media the CBC just happens to be one of the more vocal, and also one for which he controls the purse strings. 

And it's not just media-specific. Ending federal funding for government court challenges is just another aspect of the same thing.

But specific to the CBC,  I am sure he objects in principle to the notion of media funded by the public rather than corporate interests .

(edit)

And I am sure it galls him that the CBC is large enough that they have a national and international presence, and can afford to launch court challenges and access to information requests that some media cannot.

1springgarden wrote:

"Possibly Stephen Harper's government wants to take down the CBC because he sees it as a Liberal Party construct designed to forge a national identity ....."

CBC was conceived by a failing Conservative government with the argument that Canada needed a national voice in the face of invading American ideas. Heck, it wasn't just George Grant that thought about the danger of U.S.control (allowed by Liberal economic thinking, in his mind).

By the way, you can dial up George Grant's ideas from his Massey Lactures: CBC.ca/ideas/massey lectures. Don't have to bother about cracking a book.
I don't believe CFRB offers that. Or any of the others, come to think of it.

By the way, if you didn't just catch Prof. John Herd Thompson on the Sunday Edition, explaining and eloquently defending the role of the Wheat Board, you can look up the podcast later (or check out the third hour in time zones west of here) - it's worth a listen.

Not today it didn't.

Of course CBC should be criticized from a left-wing point of view. Andrew Coyne? Kevin O'Leary? Don Cherry? But when we find ourselves advocating the same solution as their friends, you might take a second and double check your math. If you support public broadcasting as such (and perhaps you don't), then it's best to advocate reform before dismantlement.

I think the Conservatives are bluffing on their threat to dismantle the CBC.  They are using the threat to push the nominally independent CBC to add more right-wing programming/messaging but when push comes to shove they too can see the value in retaining a government broadcaster.  I mean, even the new Libyan government has a broadcaster "Radio Libye", and sure as can be they are hard at work 7 days a week getting out the government's messaging, I heard them the other day in French on 11,600khz shortwave ( http://www.short-wave.info/?station=RADIO%20LIBYE ).

Now we can argue with the right over how independent from government it should be and what functions it serves, but it is playing into the right's narrative to say the CBC is only of value to those on the left.  And because so many Canadians value and enjoy the CBC the political backlash to dismantling it will be huge.  

Which is to agree that there is broad support for public broadcasting in this country, but to further suggest that threats of dismantlement are not something the left should allow ourselves to be beaten with.

Agreed!

You can find it at the 29 minute mark of the 3rd hour here.

So on Cross Country Checkup this afternoon they're talking about the global financial crisis, and Rex lets some caller go completely off-topic with an anti-union, anti-arbitration rant, raising the spectre of mom and pop grocery stores (literally) being shut down.

If it had been on-topic, fair enough. But this was a completely different issue. You can bet if it were something he disagreed with he would have shut her down right away.

Grrrrr!! Letter time.

Managed to post the above image from Friends of CBC website:

http://www.friends.ca/fact-sheet/238

It shows that while Harper is no friend of the CBC, he is really not much different than Chretian or Martin. Harper has cut the CBC by 10% since becoming elected.  A different government could add that funding back.  It seems a case of 'want a better outcome, elect a better government'.  But I just don't see the sky falling on the CBC or the institution being dismantled, I see every indication it will survive as a useful public broadcaster.  Every G7 country has a public broadcasting service because it is useful and Canada will not be an exception.

The left makes a mistake acting like we are the only people with a stake in public broadcasting in Canada when clearly the CBC serves others' agendas as well (Murphy, O'Leary, Cherry foremost evidence).  On that basis we should not hesitate to criticize the CBC when it is warranted.

I suppose the only way to fathom this romance with the CBC is to first understand the center Left's chronic approach to politics in general, with its more insistent demands amounting these days to a conversation that doesn't seem to travel much further beyond the front ranks of the riot squad; on those rare occasions when they're not being extensively ignored altogether.

That's quite the imagery, SJ (#61).

Sadly, I can't return the compliment.

I think it's clearly the case that voluntarily subscribing to the steady diet of 24/7 corporate banality in the form of news and informational programming is not enough for some. The nature of this rather peculiar addiction is such that for some users, it apparently warrants being supplemented by the entire population with involuntary contributions at source for more of it, regardless of the individual and societal harm it has repeatedly proven itself capable of. Surely by any stretch, the right in this country cannot be mobilized against the CBC on an ideological level as it pertains to content, aside from a few obscure offerings on radio enjoyed by an equally obscure listening audience.  Its main point of contention then must reside in the unnecessary disbursement of public funds to the tune of tens of millions, for a marketing approach they're all too familiar with from their own ideology, and through intimate collaboration in fact with the ceeb across various panels. It's as if some individuals cannot bring themselves to fully understand the treachery of this organization in terms of human lives. As an adjunct to the national security state, it has been performing a role not far removed from that of a public affairs spokesperson at DND, or a White House press secretary.

No doubt about it. As old P.T.Barnum said, there's one born every minute. Back to your picture of history from your "million channel universe":

"From its inception, CBC has been a massive psy-op on the Canadian population, designed to keeps the English and French populace pacified while the wealth of the country gets carried off by our colonial and corporate masters. Or provide the rationalizations and 'embedded' propaganda for whatever military misadventures the Washington (or Whitehall) consensus demands. Can the CBC ever challenge the government? Has it ever challenged the relationship between the establishment and the colony's subjects? The CBC has no more editorial range than the Globe and Mail and we are not taxed for the operation of the Globe and Mail. The best I can say about the CBC is that it is pleasant and sometimes interesting. But it has always been the government's puppet on a string.

If the CBC gets de-funded I have no doubt that other more authentic and useful voices will emerge (eg labour-sponsored media)."

I have the Globe and Mail delivered daily, to try to keep up with the goings on of those "corporate masters." And that newspaper was kept alive on the fortunes of a family that sucked dry a couple of hundred commmunity newspapers, leaving the country vulnerable to the kind of distorted picture that you carry around in your head. You're going to love Pierre Karl Peladeau.

Pretty shallow opinions from leftists. Dismantle the CBC and leave all broadcasting directly in the hands of the rich owners and rich advertisers. That will help us how? Other than allegedly reducing our tax burden, a noble objective for the masses who don't earn enough to pay much in tax?

And thinking that something will come along to "fill the gap" is pretty optimistic. We're talking about TV, radio, and internet here. Wanna guess at the startup costs?

Interested in some truly profound changes? How about starting a movement to: 1) ban all commercial advertising in broadcast media. 2) create a new publicly owned and run TV-telephone-internet provider, to compete with the private ones - heavily subsidized of course - and delivering its services free of charge up to some reasonably determined level of usage. Then watch the 1% scream.

Would you support those measures?

It's pretty shallow, and naive to be honest about it, for leftists to say to the CBC that despite everything, we'll make you treat us more fairly as soon as we get the chance.....just you wait and see.  A policy statement that offers the means to provide coast to coast opportunities for non-corporate opinions to be heard in public, doesn't sound at all like placing everyone into the hands of the rich ownership class.  They've been placed there already with the assistance of the current model of public broadcasting.

The CBC has received about $1.1 billion each year (constant 2011 dollars) for the past 15 years during the Chretian-Martin-Harper governments.  With that money CBC presently runs 4 TV channels, 4 radio channels (includes Radio Canada shortwave) and a comprehensive internet website.

If there is to be renewal at CBC then it needs a government to champion it with either new ideas, money or both.  Want a better outcome, elect a better government.  Otherwise expect the same billion dollars to deliver the same public broadcasting, with little innovation.  As the public broadcaster, the CBC is a political football that gets subjected to the inclinations of the government in power.  It's tough to have high expectations for such an arrangement.

I agree 6079, if the CBC is left alone by government to do public broadcasting it would be fine.  There has been a lot of political interference via selection of management at the CBC.  I can appreciate your positive view of what public broadcassting can be, and it is fair to recognize what we have.  Perhaps my expactations have been beaten down since the CBC had its resources cut by 33% in 1994-95.

You're being overly inventive here.  We're not discussing a different set of talking points depending on who is in power, but a capstone standard operating process that ensures multiple opinions are able to enjoy equal footing in return for continued funding from the multiple opinions there are to be found in society..or at least any footing at all.  And certainly, I'd have to agree that a New Democratic government would not be in any position to begin with if it were to enforce a non-corporate apologist agenda upon the public broadcaster.

After ten years of cheerleading on Afghanistan, Libya, and with Iran never far below the surface of current plans, it's true that I frankly do not understand how some people can still locate any value in this conglomerate.  It's like saying poor Colin Powell wasn't so bad after all, because the Bush administration made him go out there on stage at the UN Security Council peddling cartoon drawings and funny pictures.

And....does anyone know how to stay on topic anymore, in general conformity with a thread title?  Hello...it's called CBC 'bashing?'

I suppose it all depends on whether you are onside with the National Citizens Coalition and the Free Thinkers' Festival. 

But sure... Do let us get back to the original thread topic. Their panel discussion was about what they saw as the CBC's bias against Israel and against conservatives.

Well criticism can certainly come from different perspectives, but the original topic was clearly about accusations by the right wing that the CBC is biased against them, and specifically about this little festival which is a vehicle for it.

So among other things, that is evidence that not everyone thinks our public broadcaster is being run out of the PMO.

And sorry, but I haven't a clue what your second sentence means. If you are trying to say something, perhaps you should just say it.

Yes, on numerous occasions, and in a number of capacities. 

Never worked for them myself, but I know and have known a number of people on the French and English side, TV and Radio. and in technical and marketing.

Its arrogance? I have no idea where to even begin with that. 

No I have never worked in TV. When I was in the trade, I was in print.

I have been interviewed on TV in studio (once) and on radio.

I don't doubt you, but I didn't notice substantially bigger CBC crews than from other media at anything I covered, or events I have attended since.

And I don't question your experience, but I don't share it.

Hey, that little festival of theirs got some press:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/arts/television/john-doyle/why-every...

Quote: "No Sj, the majority of their stuff, like the majority of all TV, is for the great "oppressed", to borrow a term from this thread. Never watch the majority of the offerings. But boy do they ever manage to uncover some great stuff that makes the Cons squirm eh? Like that female RCMP officer (corporal) who had to go on leave of absence after 16 years of exposure to lecherous male cops? She took it to the CBC. Wonder why. And they DO try harder to produce "made in Canada" than the others."

That officer has now been joined by more than 40 female officers complaining of sexual harassment. Strange how they would all run to a government organ to express their outrage, seek justice.

Yes, ain't the new Commish a beaut, military background and all?

And obviously the CBC should not have consented to carry the complainants' views to the public. Clearly, Turmel should have expressed outrage at the commissioner's reassurances.

@ SJ #90

The CBC National News led that story this morning with the point that the commission is flawed, because it cuts off incidents before 2005, including the case of the officer who complained in the first place. 

Too limited, is one of the terms used in the piece.

The officer was told (CBC reported) that the the commission may accomplish good things, but that it was "probably too late for her".

Sorry to disappoint, but some people are doing their jobs.

The explanation for changes:

February 4, 2011

Perhaps this belongs in a living thread.



Hubert Lacroix has announced a five-year plan for the CBC that will be more Canadian, and as the Globe's John Doyle notes, "the CBC is identified as a public broadcaster in the opening sentence of the corporation's news release...(which) hasn't been a CBC thing for anumber of years." A lot of American programming will be exchanged for Canadian.

And for the first time in 20 years there's talk of expansion, regionally, "giving some CBC regional offices new equipment to deliver radio, TV and digital programming. The CBC will also create 'micro' news websites for large communities, the example the large Montreal suburb of Longueuil. Hamilton is another city under consideration for local coverage on the Internet."

As Doyle writes: "Under Richard Stursberg's leadership, CBC TV walked away from culture..."

"The precariousness of the CBC's value as a public broadcaster and cultural institution has been clear for some time. It has divided, not united, Canadians. And nothing in the new plan is going to stop those droning voices calling for the CBC to be shut down because it costs money, it is left-wing and David Suzuki is an environmentalist. To those people, it doesn't matter that the CBC gets a pittance compared with the support other countries offer to their public broadcasters. But the CBC has given those voices too much ammunition in recent years. Now, it plans to do something that can be defended. To save its own life."

Yes, clearly we should let the entertainment tastes of the "regular Canadian" determine content quality, and the profit motive set the TV and radio stage. Chase after that emporium of taste, America. And let people with a chip on their shoulder be the final arbiter.

As the man said: "To those people, it doesn't matter that the CBC gets a pittance compared with the support other countries offer to their public broadcasters."

As me old mom used to say, "it takes all kinds."

You are mistaking low brow entertainment that other private broadcasters put on with solid reporting. You can certainly have an opinion about the quality of what the other networks are putting on, but by the same token, that is what I am criticizing about the CBC. I don't care what the CBC puts on as entertainment. I am more interested in its news side which soaks up a lot of dollars.

And since when did the common person have a chip on their shoulder for criticizing the CBC. Sounds like an elitist almost Communist perspective. We know what's good for you because you clearly don't. Pravda also kniew what was good for the citizen too.

Well do tell who is my favourite right wing broadcaster?  PLEASE STOP TRYING TO READ MY MIND. You seem to always get it wrong.  I don't know why your insults get a free pass on this board but c'est la vie. 

If you would start reading for the actual content of other posts you would know I am not a right winger and very seldom read right wing media like the Globe and Mail or the NY Times. Unlike others on this board who often bring that kind of MSM drivel from right wing pundits to the discussion.