babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.
Support rabble | Advertise with us | Contact our staff | About rabble | Log-in or Register for a new account | Corrections | Privacy policy | Newsfeeds | Mailing lists
rabble: Features | Columnists | In Cahoots | Blogs | Books | Photos | What's Up | Polls
babble: Forum Topics | Active Topics
The rpn: About the RPN | Become a podcaster
rabbleTV: Program Guide | Features | Indie Inside | Best of the net
Copyright © 2001-2013 the authors
Syndicate
Double Post
@ autoworker
Here is where I found the maps. Analog TV signal ranges are in black. Digital are in blue:
http://www.cbc.radio-canada.ca/dtv/coverageMaps.shtml
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.
What about the majority of the stuff that is unwatchable...CBC TV in its entirety for example...we're supposed to pay for the extra heaping servings of that shit beyond what we're already paying for through corporate tax breaks, which assist them with peddling similar shit on every other channel in the universe? They throw a couple of bones out from behind the radio mic and we're supposed to dive headlong into the sewer to fetch them?
Whatever the CBC once was has been drowned out by the cadence of its war drum. And yes I have, and found rather that it is specific to certain topics, and simply comes down to a matter of choosing from among the more optimum descriptive words which best befit the subject.
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.
In the end I don't think Harper will de-fund the CBC as simply the threat of doing so has the CBC stepping lively to government priorities. I think Harper may find having a government broadcaster to be useful if it reflects the government's priorities. I know the CBC is supposed to be independent of the government, but that has always been debatable, especially now. Even the US government is now looking at allowing a Voice of America -type government broadcast service within the US:
Okay, I may be getting onto a tangent talking about VOA, but I would hope you can see how the CBC can be easily criticized from the left. For my part I can certainly see why Canadians value the CBC and wish to defend it, I have often enjoyed CBC pragramming myself.
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.
I think that comment strikes a fair balance. I would add though that it goes beyond being "enjoyable". There are some within the CBC who work hard and are quite effective at holding the government to task.
Are there right-wing voices as well? Of course. For one thing, the CBC is under assault; I don't think anyone here is denying that. But beyond that, it is supposed to reflect the public. That means it doesn't just speak for you or me.
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'm all for changing the bathwater but will defend the CBC because there is no Canadian commercial equivalent and never will be.
I highly recommend the interview with Prof. John Herd Thompson that Unionist linked to. The media in general has been extremely negligent when it comes to reporting on the CWB.
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.
I am not sure what you mean by this. Not trying to corner you, as I acknowledge we have different opinions, but I am curious.
From what I see, the government threat of rendering the CBC ineffective is very real; it is already in the process of being gutted and co-opted
And I have read enough opinions from some on the left who would love to see it dismantled.
I think this whole focus on news coverage (though it is of prime concern to us) is extremely narrow, and ignores the cultural importance of the CBC in terms of broadcasting in official and numerous Native languages, as well as their mandate to broadcast in parts of the country where no other radio or TV exists, as well as overseas.
That aspect of public broadcasting, as well as its mandate to reflect a wide range of opinion, is something that is being missed, I think.
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.
@ 1springarden
I agree with you completely that the CBC should not be our mouthpiece anymore than anyone else's. I don't think everyone (or even a majority) on the left thinks that. I think most supporters recognize that its mandate is to present a wide range of ideas.
Any of the criticisms I have of the CBC don't stem from them presenting opinions I disagree with, but from instances where programs have an unfair bias, double standard or unprofessionalism.
The O'Leary/Hedges encounter I mentioned above is a perfect example. Kevin O'Leary is not a journalist in any sense of the word. It is not he who should have been censured so much as the producer who thought it was a good idea to put an untrained person in a national news position in the first place.
For that matter, so long as Don Cherry sticks to doing his job I have no problem with him at all. I don't think racist comments and calling down people for being opposed to on-ice violence falls under that job description.