Just turned off CBC

By the way, the thread title ("Just turned off CBC") says much: When you are not reliant on a single source of government-spewed information, you have the choice to "turn it off" and direct your attention to many other alternative sources of information.

Try applying that same principle to food, clothing, and all of the other products and services available in Canada and America.  Government can play [i]an[/i] important role in maintaining system transparency and throwing people like Bernie Ebbers and Dennis Kozlowski in prison for actual theft.  But, to turn the means of production over to the government would be foolishness...unless one favors slavery to equality.  And, in that case, you'll get exactly that: Slavery.

___________________________________________________

[b]Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!![/b]

Lard Tunderin' Jeezus wrote:

Sorry that explaining our institutions to a foreigner hostile to them isn't a priority here.

That's laughable, Lard.  Babblers routinely criticize actions in other countries (especially in the much-hated America).

_____________________________________________

[b]Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!![/b]

Sven crusades here against government monopoly over broadcasting - as if anyone suggested it. The question is whether there should be [i][b]ONE[/b][/i] well-financed and democratically owned and controlled medium that is not beholden to a handful of wealthy families. Sven can't criticizes that notion, so he instead rails against another of his own imagination. It's called strawcasting.

RosaL wrote:

I'm not romanticizing. 

I'm sorry, but you are romanticizing.

Certainly, the early 20th century was not bereft of joy and pleasure.  And, I do think there was a stronger sense of community (because, in part, there weren't things available to passively entertain people, like TV, video games, the Internet, etc.).  But, life, particularly rural life, was very, very difficult.

____________________________________________________

[b]Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!![/b]

Freedom = Slavery only in a Lewis Carolesque world, FM.

___________________________________________________________

[b]Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!![/b]

Sven wrote:

Freedom = Slavery only in a Lewis Carolesque world, FM.

You have lost almost everything and in exchange you have material excess. The really sad thing is that you've been convinced that what you have is freedom.

Sven wrote:

Ah, but don't you and many others want the means of production of products and services controlled by the government?

No, I don't. But I love your debating style:

"Those workers rioting in the streets for union recognition are a bunch of Bolsheviks - so, we can't recognize their union!"

"Single-payer health care for now - but then what? Single user!?"

Thank God those kinds of totalitarian arguments no longer work in a free society like Canada. You should visit here sometime, if they'll still let you leave.

I didn't say it wasn't 'very, very difficult'. And I was talking about rural life. (Where do you think I live?) I am reporting what people (not just one person) have said. I don't think they were romanticizing either. Nor was I talking about 'joy and pleasure'. What I had in mind, for lack of a better term, was 'the life of the spirit', in a kind of Germanic (rather than religious) sense.

My point was that the forms of our deprivation have changed, not that there wasn't real deprivation in the past. 

Good post FM, I agree.

___________________________________________________________

"watching the tide roll away"

My own moment of (latest) realization of the CBC as instruments of government propaganda came with the release in July of the Omar Khadr interrogation tapes.

Shown on the National news, no less, Omar Khadr said "I have been tortured by Americans at Bagram airbase." A statement which should have been the central focus of the newspiece, was totally ignored by the reporters and commentators, and the story was deliberately manipulated to present a talking head following that statement, a commenter who totally dismissed and belittled Khadr's assertion. 

The manipulation was clever and subtle, but completely insidious and disgusting. 

Unionist wrote:

Sven wrote:

Ah, but don't you and many others want the means of production of products and services controlled by the government?

No, I don't.

Okay, so perhaps you don't want the means of production of products and services controlled by the government but many on the Left pine for those days.

_________________________________________________

[b]Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!![/b]

Sven wrote:

Okay, so perhaps you don't want the means of production of products and services controlled by the government but many on the Left pine for those days.

No doubt your opinion is based on good empirical evidence. Perhaps you could give us some examples.  

Sven, you have used only an Alice in Wonderland reference and an old lady's reminiscing on independence as implied sources  for your "position", which looks sort of John Waynish, "pilgrim."

Got any others to offer? (Or were folks like Mark Twain also speaking out of a nasty socialism-inspired background in their attacks on the status quo? )

Perhaps an offering from that "veritable 'marketplace of ideas' " that awaits us all?

Something beyond  monosyllabic  rhetoric?

Sven wrote:

RosaL wrote:

I'm not romanticizing.

I'm sorry, but you are romanticizing.

Now THIS is funny! When RosaL responds to Sven's anecdotal history with pretty much exactly the same of her own, RosaL is "romanticizing"! But SVEN isn't! Nooo, Sven talks "facts". Everyone else is making shit up. 

I'm pretty sure NPR exists in Minnesota, Sven. Does that represent slavery of the masses?

Frustrated Mess wrote:

Quote:

How about turning them both off?  I rarely watch either.  There are many other sources of information.  There's a veritable "marketplace of ideas" out there, Catchfire.

Then you should access them because your arguments here suggest you are as insular and sheltered from alternative perspectives as the stereotypes suggest.

Why, because the arguments in favor of the positions you support are so obviously self-evident that any person who gives those arguments the slighted thought or consideration would automatically argree with them?

___________________________________________

[b]Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!![/b]

Nothing, then,  in the way of inspiring reading/listening from your own perspective,  Sven? 

Loretta wrote:

For Sven and others who might be reading this thread, here is a good article on the importance and influence of public broadcasting:

http://www.ratical.org/co-globalize/RMmythCB.html

 

That is a fantastic paper Loretta. Dr. McChesney provides an excellent overview of the history of public broadcasting including comparisons between the UK, Canada and the US. Written in 1997, his prognostication of the impact of globalization and media concentration on broadcast communications is excellent but sadly, I think that he over-estimated the impact anti-corporate forces would have on media. If anything the situation has grown worse.

From his lecture:

Quote:

The ultimate goal must be to have the
public service sector be the dominant component of the
broadcasting and media system. Hence the struggle for public
service broadcasting cannot avoid direct confrontation and
conflict with the existing corporate media giants. Our goal
must be to break them up into smaller units, and to encourage
the success of media workers' unions as a counterbalance to
corporate muscle. And commercial broadcasters should be held to
high public service standards. For example, there is no reason
that children's TV shows or TV news programs should have any
advertising.

But these are matters I can only raise, not settle. They are
the proper subject of political debate. Our most immediate job
is to put media issues on the political agenda, to convince
people that it is their right in a democratic society to
establish a media system that serves their needs. What I have
presented so far suggests this will not be an easy task,
especially in the United States where media power is
concentrated and protected by world-class public relations. But
it is not a hopeless task. Surveys and repeated experiences
suggest that the U.S. people, and people elsewhere, are not
enthralled with the corporate commercial media culture. It's
just that people often lack even the most elementary level of
information -- after all, where would they get it, except
through the media system? -- and they have been alternately
seduced and pummeled by corporate propaganda. They feel
powerless to effect change, and frankly, they have a point. In
this vacuum, right-wing media theories can and do prosper; but
what is striking is how little they actually do resonate with
the mass of people. The area of media reform is wide open and
waiting for democratic media activists to exploit.

In this scenario, where there is a paucity of reliable
information, there is a crucial role to be played by
communication scholars and academics. Our job is to conduct
research on how the current system works and present it in as
accessible a manner as possible. Our job is to study and report
on the history of communication policy-making and nonprofit
media, and their link to democratic politics. Our job is to
subject the corporate media PR claims to rigorous scrutiny and
then publicize the results of our research to the best of our
ability. Our job is to connect with scholars with similar
concerns in other academic disciplines and fields, and to work
closely with media reform activists. Our job is not to be
anybody's cheerleader or to pull any punches. Our job is to
maintain a commitment to democratic values, to tell the truth,
and to let the chips fall where they may.

Sadly, communication scholars, at least in the United States,
have dropped the ball in this regard. To some extent, this is
due to the general structure of Academe, which encourages
scholars to avoid conflicts with the powers-that-be. As Noam
Chomsky once noted, the United States has the most cowardly
intellectual class in the world. To a great extent, in
communication particularly, this is due to the close attachment
of academic departments to the media industries. This
relationship gives a strong push to what Paul Lazarsfeld termed
"administrative" research that serves media owners, rather than
"critical" research that aims to serve democratic ideals. It is
striking how little of the most useful critical work in
communication is actually generated by scholars in
communication departments.

His comment about academic integrity could be applied to most areas of study these days. You have to go back to 80s and 90s to find critical academic works that don't parrot neo-conservative corporate goals. You see it every time a public affairs or new program, whether on CTV, Global or CBC, turns to an academic expert for an interview or panel spot. The pool of diverse opinions and well informed critique is shrinking.

Another aspect he touches upon is the dumbing down of journalism in general and its impact:

Quote:

Consider ... the decline of journalism that
accompanies the rise of the Disneys, Time Warners, and Rupert
Murdochs to the commanding positions in global news media.
Traditionally, there has existed a relatively sophisticated
journalism pitched at business interests and the upper middle
classes, and an inexpensive schlock journalism pitched at the
masses. Among the new giants of the news media, however, a
commitment to high-quality journalism as a necessary public
service evaporates as soon as the bottom line comes into view.
Good journalism is expensive. Good journalism usually
antagonizes powerful political and business interests. So it
was in 1994 that Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation discontinued
carrying the BBC World Service television channel in Asia
because the Chinese leadership let it be known that doing so
would undermine Murdoch's chance at the lucrative Chinese
market. And when Disney purchased ESPN in 1995, Disney CEO
Michael Eisner acknowledged that ESPN's appeal was that it
never antagonized political powers in any nation. When Disney
fulfilled a contractual obligation and distributed the
pro-Tibetan Kundon in 1997, Eisner bent over backwards
to kiss the rear ends of the Chinese leaders, all but promising
that Disney would never again make the mistake of delving into
China's "internal" affairs. Disney even hired Henry Kissinger
to massage the Chinese leadership on its behalf. Also in 1997,
Time Warner's CNN addressed its declining ratings by airing an
interview with O.J. Simpson and subsequent shows analyzing the
interview. These corporate decisions are based entirely upon
self-serving economic considerations, not on traditional
journalistic considerations. It goes without saying that not
one of these new media giants would ever follow the lead of
Baruch Ivcher, the Peruvian TV station owner who has been
threatened with deportation or arrest for persistently exposing
the corruption of the Fujimori government.

Media mergers in the 1990s led to a great deal of downsizing and reorganization that resulted in smaller news staffs and greater reliance on the same information sources (news feeds such as AP, CP and Reuters). It presented an opportunity to prune the news room of top notch investigative journalists or critical editorialists. I'm sure schools of journalism followed suit because the focus in academia moved to meeting market demand. Just think of it, Sara Palin has a journalism degree. I'm not suggesting that all journalist graduates post 1980s are as vaccuous as her but I believe curriculums have been dumbed down to fill the requirements of corporate media.

So in part, Sven is right, the CBC of late has been shaped by competition. Where he is wrong is in the fact that that competition has not had the effect of keeping them in check or responsive to public needs. It has had the opposite effect. It has led to the dilution of quality and a diminished capacity to be responsive to the public good.

Governments, Conservative and Liberals, have been pushing the CBC to behave like a corporate competitor for the past three decades. Although an arms length crown corporation, the government controls public financing and Board of Director/Executive Management appointments. This sets the tone for how the day-to-day business of running the CBC is done. These policies have led to a reversal of the role CBC (like the BBC) once played as being the standard bearer of what quality production and programming should be.

What seems evident to me is that the CBC should be strengthened and allowed to follow its original mandate as outlined in the Broadcasting Act. The preamble of that Act alone is a thing of beauty. It recognizes our airwaves as a public good that must serve to shore up our democracy.

As Dr. McChesney points out:

Quote:

In Britain, public service broadcasting had the strongest hold
by far. The BBC enjoyed a complete monopoly from the 1920s
until the 1950s. It also enjoyed significant popular support.
Even after commercial radio and television were introduced, the
system managed to maintain its overriding commitment to public
service for decades. This was due to no small extent to a
regulatory regime that made it difficult for the commercial
broadcasters to become entrenched and which required that they
meet high standards for public service. In short, commercial
principles were kept on a short leash and were not permitted to
set the rules for the entire system. Indeed, the British
experience suggests that a mixed system of public and
commercial broadcasting can coexist and prosper (and even
perhaps be desirable) if there is rigorous regulation to ensure
public service values. But this is a difficult balance to
strike; in Britain the incessant prodding of commercial
interests, combined with the Thatcherite love of the market,
helped turn the tide. By the 1990s British media scholar Colin
Sparks announced that British broadcasting was a predominately
commercial affair, and that the BBC was taking rather than
giving cues.

By the way, hi Unionist! Thanks for the wishes. Best to you and yours. 

I think that if enough Americans and Canadians were sufficiently brainwashed, there would be no more need for billionaires to fund political campaigns. Apparently they cant trust voters to decide for themselves without well funded propaganda campaigns every four years, and now every two in Canada. The conservatives never really recovered from Brian Mulroney's legacy. 22 percent of registered voter support is all they could muster just a few weeks ago, even after having spent more on campaigning than every other party.

 And the powermongers would have no reason to buck the left trying to repair our obsolete and dysfunctional voting systems. They still dont fully trust us with democracy in the English-speaking countries.

The Conservatives have more to spend, Fidel,  because they collect more aindividual  donations (the average was $97 Edit:  $97 was the average for Obama) than all the other parties combined. They have very efficient IT networks - like the committed Christians. Often, it's local chambers of commerce mailing lists. "Billionaires" can no longer do it for them (or the Libs). But, of course, the media give them freebies all the time.

The Conservatives HAVE "recovered from Brian Mulroney's legacy" by combioning CRAP with PCP  - and more. We just have to become better at organizing - and informing. A recession tipping toward economic depression  should provide opportunities, one would think.

Thank you for that contribution, Laine. It is the perfect opening to put this thread back on track. Sven's deliberate derailment should be ignored from this point forward.

--------------------------------------------------------------

Right on, LTJ.

And FM - I sure would not want to be on the opposing team! You've got the  21st century  consumer/taxpayer  profile just about right. How do we restore the concept "citizen" without taking over the printing presses?

Like, what are you reading lately?

no, I won't say anything.

Lard Tunderin' Jeezus wrote:

Thank you for your last contribution, Laine. It is the perfect opening to put this thread back on track. Sven's deliberate derailment should be ignored from this point forward.

[i]~yawn~[/i] 

________________________________________________

[b]Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!![/b]

Sven wrote:

The capitalist society that we have has made huge strides forward for the average person.

No, that is false. The capitalist system we have in place has been so for the country's entire history. Were were the huge strides forward for the average person from 1867 to 1940? Never mind history, anecdotaly we know that there was a great deal of poverty pre-WWII. Why? Because an elite wealthy few called the shots. During the Depression, people suffered greatly, and most historians credit WWII as ending it. Which was the case. But what happened is that people saw the government neglect them only to spend money to fight a war. Well, they were angry, and they demanded better. Ever heard of the demonstrations of the 60s? That's where they came from. The elite allowed living standards to rise, but only in response to public anger and out of fear of the Bolshevik Revolution making its way to this side of the Atlantic. Speaking of Bolsheviks, the USSR provided a convenient way for any forms of socialism to be dismissed and for capitalism to be held up as superior. This was also accompanied by a relentles propaganda campaign which convinced people that their advancement was due to their own hard work and not as a result of the social changes that were happening. If hard work is all it takes to advance a population, why was it only in the post-war period that average people gained the most ground? Or are you suggesting that people didn't work hard throughout the 20s and 30s?