Smash the Ceebs

Fri, 2011-01-28 23:09

Boom Boom

Who else but the CBC would have shown the latest Suzuki doc on the tarsands? Or the entire Nature Of Things series? Or any of the other groundbreaking stuff the CBC has put out over the years? Fine, dump that prick Don Cherry and all the other useless rightwing jerks at the CBC, but don't throw the baby out with the dishwater.

PS: Ask your MP to build the CBC, not tear it down

Fri, 2011-01-28 23:49

#3

al-Qa'bong

Good God, man! You bathe your babies in the dishwasher?

Sat, 2011-01-29 00:31

#4

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

Why not? they come out spotless!

The evidence:

[img]http://leetlady.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/dishwasher.jpg[/img]

Sat, 2011-01-29 01:55

#5

Fidel

Apparently the alternative is Fox Newz North. I think it might be like having our DNA re-sequenced, or something.

Sat, 2011-01-29 12:27

#6

George Victor

Don't worry. Attacked from the nominal left as well as the right, CBC won't be able to run Hockey Night by 2012.

Sat, 2011-01-29 12:54

#7

Boom Boom

Yet another sign that the world ends in 2012.

Sat, 2011-01-29 12:57

#8

George Victor

I'm going to have to watch my use of that year with you fundamentalists around, Boomer.

Sat, 2011-01-29 13:04

#9

Boom Boom

Sat, 2011-01-29 15:47

#10

Catchfire

Or, you know, you could just donate to rabble and not smash anything!

Sun, 2011-01-30 16:17

#11

Le T

Ok. I know there are some Mansbridge fans out there but just consider the potential of a decentralized publicly-owned media. Resources and content could be shared but affinity groups or local communities could run their own media similar to the rabble model.

ETA: Also, that should read "duncan cameron" not "campbell". Thanks to George Victor for catching that.

Mon, 2011-01-31 01:11

#12

al-Qa'bong

I like the national scope of the CBC, (or at least the CBC that used to be), so I'm not too excited about local affinity groups. We have community radio for that anyway.

Mon, 2011-01-31 11:03

#13

Le T

I would trade Cross Country Check Up for increased funding for community radio in an second. I think that a national scope could still be achieved using decentralized media. It would probably be more of a "national scope" than the current "national scope".

Mon, 2011-01-31 11:15

#14

Lard Tunderin Jeezus Lard Tunderin Jeezus's picture

The "left" that romanticizes the Ceeb better start selling a new vision for it, because the rest of us have recognized that the Corp. is just another cog in the mainstream media machine, and have given up on trying to protect it.

Why man the perimeter when the enemy is already in control inside?

Mon, 2011-01-31 12:58

#15

George Victor

Ah, but the CBC is only playing dead by necessity, having been keel-hauled by piss-poor navigators, LTJ. It would spring back to life in a moment with the proper captain at the binnacle. No?

Trying to resurrect the remnants of a Conservative end game would be quite hopeless. And we must live in hope while it still exists. At least, I can't be content with the continued lament of the left hereabouts.

Mon, 2011-01-31 13:04

#16

Lard Tunderin Jeezus Lard Tunderin Jeezus's picture

George Victor wrote:

Ah, but the CBC is only playing dead by necessity, having been keel-hauled by piss-poor navigators, LTJ. It would spring back to life in a moment with the proper captain at the binnacle. No?

No.

...or a least, not bloody likely.

Mon, 2011-01-31 13:06

#17

Snert

Quote:
Think about it. Putting Don Cherry on EI would fund 3 other rabble.ca's per year.

You don't suppose that maybe part of that $600K is revenue that Cherry attracts, do you?

Or, in other words, if you sack him, the CBC would actually lose MORE than $600K in revenues?

Otherwise your suggestion sounds a bit like saying that my local shoe store does $10,000 in sales each month, with $6,000 in costs -- mainly shoes -- so what if they just chose not to pay those costs? They could keep the whole $10,000! Er, right?

Mon, 2011-01-31 13:12

#18

N.R.KISSED

Snert wrote:

Quote:
Think about it. Putting Don Cherry on EI would fund 3 other rabble.ca's per year.

You don't suppose that maybe part of that $600K is revenue that Cherry attracts, do you?

Or, in other words, if you sack him, the CBC would actually lose MORE than $600K in revenues?

Otherwise your suggestion sounds a bit like saying that my local shoe store does $10,000 in sales each month, with $6,000 in costs -- mainly shoes -- so what if they just chose not to pay those costs? They could keep the whole $10,000! Er, right?

Yes exactly people only watch hockey night in Canada because of Don Cherry. No one ever watched hockey before Don Cherry and they won't afterwards. Advertisers wouldn't want to advertise during hockey night in Canada if Don Cherry wasn't there.

Mon, 2011-01-31 13:13

#19

Lard Tunderin Jeezus Lard Tunderin Jeezus's picture

Snert doesn't understand that the rest of the country watches HNIC to see the game. He thinks we're all like him, switching on the tube to catch his hero at half-time.

Mon, 2011-01-31 13:21

#20

Slumberjack

Back when I watched HNIC, I'd use the Coach's Corner segment for a much needed whiz and a beverage refill at the fridge. Now that my Saturday nights are no longer taken up with hockey, I can pretty much go whenever I want.

Mon, 2011-01-31 13:22

#21

George Victor

If Don Cherry were to disappear with the CBC, it would be the single consolation in an otherwise devastating loss to the country.

Mon, 2011-01-31 13:29

#22

Slumberjack

I find it difficult to describe any hypothetical scenario where ditching the carrier of such programs as The National, Power and Politics, and Lang&O'Leary as devastating losses for the country.

Mon, 2011-01-31 13:38

#23

Snert

Quote:

Snert doesn't understand that the rest of the country watches HNIC to see the game. He thinks we're all like him, switching on the tube to catch his hero at half-time.

I don't watch hockey, and I don't watch Cherry.

But unless the CBC is run by monkeys, I'm going to assume that Cherry draws viewers, and thereby, draws revenues as well.

Quote:

Yes exactly people only watch hockey night in Canada because of Don Cherry. No one ever watched hockey before Don Cherry and they won't afterwards. Advertisers wouldn't want to advertise during hockey night in Canada if Don Cherry wasn't there.

People would certainly watch hockey without Cherry. But hey, maybe MORE people watch hockey with him. Does that make sense??

Or is it really your thesis that the CBC pays Cherry $600K just for LULZ?

Mon, 2011-01-31 14:05

#24

George Victor

Slumberjack wrote:

I find it difficult to describe any hypothetical scenario where ditching the carrier of such programs as The National, Power and Politics, and Lang&O'Leary as devastating losses for the country.

That's the source of your parochialism. Failure to catch the programs that bring folks together across the country, particularly on Radio One.

Mon, 2011-01-31 14:37

#25

Slumberjack

I try and stay awake when I'm driving George, having no particular nostalgia for fireside style chats. It's the only time I listen to radio. And I don't really think it matters if you're watching someone as they urinate on you, or if you can only hear them doing it. The effect is the same. What I do believe however is that citizen and independent journalism could eventually overtake the CBC in terms of relevancy to Canadians if they had the wherewithal to expand their reach. Some of us like to imagine the millions wasted on questionable CBC programming as a potential source for that wherewithal.

Mon, 2011-01-31 15:16

#26

George Victor

Naw, Jack, you'd soon bore yourselves to death, fall asleep and drive into a tree or something.

Fri, 2011-02-04 11:02

#27

George Victor

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."

Fri, 2011-02-04 12:08

#28

Slumberjack

The ceebs credibility as a news organization is shot full of holes after years of kowtowing and dancing to the purse strings of the latest puppet masters in Ottawa. If the nihilistic approach isn't the remedy for their finger in the wind approach to journalism, it can certainly be used as a bargaining position to compel them to project a wider representation of views. The left shouldn't be coddling such an organization that so obviously caters to the happy hour reactionary voices, but should instead be more strategic about its expectations by being seen among the first in line aboard the bandwagon toward smashing once and for all the lackey methodology it applies to news coverage and exposure of ideas. The very idea of distributing some or their entire funding envelope across the new landscape of citizen journalism and alternate media might be enough to send shivers down the track once occupied by their spines.

Fri, 2011-02-04 12:32

#29

George Victor

Sure.

Fri, 2011-02-04 14:28

#30

kropotkin1951

The CBC coverage of Egypt has some of the most disgusting pro stability propaganda I've seen. They are not a public broadcaster they are our state media. They always push the NATO imperial line. Their reporters have shown sincere empathy for the poor Israeli's who are feeling threatened and I don't think I have once heard the people in the streets of Egypt called pro-democracy protesters instead the CBC steadfastly uses anti-government forces. I will admit since the NATO enforcers in control have started intimidating and harassing the Globe's and CBC's reporters they have been a little more courageous. Although strangely they seem to believe the answer to the crisis is the CIA man recently appointed as VP.

Sun, 2011-02-06 00:04

#31

al-Qa'bong

Yeah, all CBC reports on Egypt are headed "Crisis in Egypt," as if the risk of democracy were a crisis.

As for those of you who want to throw away the CBC, please don't blame the ideal of our public broadcaster (I rarely hear that word without thinking of that night, while washing dishes as a teenager, listening to Babs Frumm's riposte to Harold Ballard) for the temporary faults of CBC management. Try to recall how Big Al McFee once tried to assassinate a CBC manager with a garden hose back when the Mother Corporation still lived up to your rigid standards.

Sun, 2011-02-06 12:02

#32

6079_Smith_W

kropotkin1951 wrote:

I agree with support for a public broadcaster. I think we need to sell the CBC to Fox and use the money to set up a proper public broadcast system in the country.

just amusing myself by imagining what I might hear on this utopian station of yours. I'm not happy having news broadcasts interrupted during playoff season either, but last time I checked "public" meant everyone, not just the five or six people who think exactly like I do.

For that matter (not talking about the CBC here) I think almost all media is a good thing, including the right wing and technical variety. It is surprising what you can learn from them when they think other people are not paying attention.

Sun, 2011-02-06 12:35

#33

kropotkin1951

I turned the CBC off this morning when its feature interview was a business owner with a shop a few of blocks away from the Square talking about how much money he is losing. I also take great umbrage with their constant use of "anti-government" protesters instead of pro-democracy protesters. In Canada's state media only Iran and China have pro-democracy protesters. In Western backed dictatorships they are anti-government protesters who whether they mean to or not are causing UNNEEDED instability.

I agree with support for a public broadcaster. I think we need to sell the CBC to Fox and use the money to set up a proper public broadcast system in the country.

Sun, 2011-02-06 12:41

#34

kropotkin1951

6079_Smith_W wrote:
kropotkin1951 wrote:
I agree with support for a public broadcaster. I think we need to sell the CBC to Fox and use the money to set up a proper public broadcast system in the country.

just amusing myself by imagining what I might hear on this utopian station of yours.

Well if you want to fantasize then look to programming that is a cross between the Public stations in the US and the Knowledge Network in BC. I get to watch great programs unassailed by constant corporate propaganda in 30 second sound bites. Public means we all pay for it and it works to the benefit of the community. The strange thing that CBC TV is now is hardly a public broadcaster. It is a state owned media outlet that sells advertising and provides MSM mediocrity.

Sun, 2011-02-06 13:18

#35

6079_Smith_W

@ kropotkin1951

Well if you already have what you want what is the problem? Is it that you might have to pay for other people having the programming they want to see and hear? That is an argument I am more used to hearing from the right wing.

And you mention advertising as if it is a dirty word. The fact is that advertising is a good thing, and very little in the way of media, entertainment and public events would exist without it.

That said, there are only two things on CBC television that really concern me right now - the news and kids programming, and as far as I am concerned they spend every dollar of my money wisely because they provide the latter with no commercials, unlike almost every other children's broadcaster.

As for me, I think I can selectively tune out paid advertising when I want like most adults.

Sun, 2011-02-06 13:45

#36

6079_Smith_W

But the greatest flight of fancy in my mind is the notion that destroying the public broadcaster we have will somehow produce your perfect ideal out of thin air

Sorry, but nothing like that happens without hard work. As far as I am concerned my time is better spent being engaged with the system we have, and letting them know loudly and repeatedly how I think they should be doing their job better.

You want to smash the Ceeb, or sell it to make a buck? Our prime minister may agree with you, but I do not.

Sun, 2011-02-06 15:57

#37

kropotkin1951

6079_Smith_W wrote:

But the greatest flight of fancy in my mind is the notion that destroying the public broadcaster we have will somehow produce your perfect ideal out of thin air

Well at least we know were we disagree because iMO the biggest flight of fancy is that the CBC TV as presently constituted in anyway resembles a public broadcaster.

Sun, 2011-02-06 16:09

#38

George Victor

Absolutely, rock solid logic there, 6079. But it won't measure up to the nihilist code.

Sun, 2011-02-06 16:21

#39

al-Qa'bong

Codified nihilism? There's gotta be a Saturday Night Live sketch in there somewhere.

CBC's Ideas has the bases covered already, and gives us an informed examination of nihilism.

Quote:
Part Four: The Temptations of Nihilism.

Terrorists use violence as an end in itself. Political goals are eclipsed by murder and mayhem. Politics and the arts of negotiation and compromise die.

The 2003 Gifford Lectures by Michael Ignatieff

On second thought...

Sun, 2011-02-06 16:32

#40

Pope Teddywang Pope Teddywang's picture

I vote to fix it, not ditch it.

Suggestions for the box:

Establish firmly that the purpose of the CBC is to provide a balance to the same-think of the corporate news, not pander to it.

Bring back Don Newman, put Neil MacDonald in charge of The National, and give Michael Bate a 'Daily Show' called FRANK.

Replace Rex Murphy with Robb Wells and Don Cherry with Joey Shithead.

Or vice versa.

Mon, 2011-02-07 08:19

#41

Le T

Joey Shithead would never agree to such a thing.

Quote:
You want to smash the Ceeb, or sell it to make a buck? Our prime minister may agree with you, but I do not.

By "smash" I meant "get out of the business of making right-wind, status quo, MSM TV and liberal-feel-good radio. Instead taking the billion dollars in funding and start 1000 rabbles or other citizen jounalism orgs. There could be shared content and investivative funding. There could be shared resources like servers, radio transmitters and TV cameras."

Quote:
Absolutely, rock solid logic there, 6079. But it won't measure up to the nihilist code.

Nihilist code = anything but a liberal (note the small 'l' before shitting bricks everyone) "work with the system" politics? How nice of you to marginalize the radicals. You should host Ontario Morning!

Mon, 2011-02-07 08:49

#42

George Victor

Radicals should = balanced = effective.

Mon, 2011-02-07 09:26

#43

6079_Smith_W

@ Le T

Well if you aren't in favour of dismantling it and replacing it then I agree with you on that, which is the main point of contention for me.

I don't think anyone here likes everything on CBC just the way it is right now. The question is what to do about it, and I think the idea that I should turn my back on it and refuse to have anything to do with it until it fixes itself is a bit unrealistic.

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. If I hear something that I feel is unfair, inaccurate, or notice something left out I call or write them, as I do with other media. But it is not their job to broadcast my opinion and my opinion alone.*

And that decantralized, local approach that is being talked about is already there, especially on radio, though it is not always an automatic solution. It is all in HOW the news is covered. The main problem with U.S. news in my opinion is that much of it is local spot news with little analysis - car crashes, murders and thefts - not that enlightening, IMO.

You don't effect change by destroying, but by building, and working to change what is there, or building strong alternatives is the only way to make that change happen. To think that in any climate, especially this one, you can gut a system like that and the alternative you want will automatically appear just by throwing a pile of money at it is unrealistic.

Without engagement that money has no power to do anything at all.

(edit)

*Then again, I don't expect to get all my news and information from one source. Even if it is what I want, it would still be spoon-feeding.

Mon, 2011-02-07 10:55

#44

Lard Tunderin Jeezus Lard Tunderin Jeezus's picture

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.

As opposed to the virtual boycott of our views currently?

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.

When the 32% of us who oppose Harper resolutely are given a voice, I'll be satisfied. When the NDP receives half the airtime of the Conservatives (equivalent to their percentage of the popular vote), I'll be happy to support the CBC.

As it is, they are worse than useless. My tax dollars are being used against me now.

Mon, 2011-02-07 11:34

#45

Lard Tunderin Jeezus Lard Tunderin Jeezus's picture

Quote:
But we must not return the airwaves to the complete control of capital...

Too late.

Mon, 2011-02-07 11:43

#46

George Victor

Persistent in your pessimism, ain'cha?

Mon, 2011-02-07 11:44

#47

George Victor

But we must not return the airwaves to the complete control of capital...the pre-1936 condition rectified by the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada...along with their installation of a central bank and an airline. Worked great in wartime and came to be a progressive voice ...for a while. Still elements of that struggling to get along ...The CBC still exposes a helluva lot more rot in gov't institutions than the others...who only contribute Conservative candidates. (and if we contributed our taxes in the proportion given by each citizen to the national broadcasters of ANY OTHER country, we might not see silly "Smash the Ceebs" threads up for serious discussion).

Mon, 2011-02-07 11:48

#48

Lard Tunderin Jeezus Lard Tunderin Jeezus's picture

No more persistent than you, in your avoidance of the issue of complete corruption of our so-called "public" broadcaster.

Mon, 2011-02-07 11:52

#49

Slumberjack

All that several decades of this anesthetic summons to 'work within' has managed to accomplish is the dulling of any sense that things have gotten far worse today than at any other time in living memory. All it does is to compel us to continue occupying the same chilling void as the prevailing system of corporate domination itself, with its security and surveillance networks.

Mon, 2011-02-07 12:03

#50

George Victor

Don't know of anyone else with the grit to carry Suzuki, whose work over the decades has accomplished anything but the "dulling of any sense that things have gotten far worse today than at any other time in living memory. "

But perhaps folks hereabouts don't watch/listen to such stuff. Can't imagine any other excuse for such avoidance of what's out there.

Mon, 2011-02-07 12:35

#51

Slumberjack

Embracing what's out there is pure avoidance. With Suzuki, they're wise enough to be mindful when it comes to tossing a little raw meat to satisfy the easily satisfied. They wouldn't want too many people starting to wonder just what they're good for.

Smash the Ceebs

Pages