Perhaps my perception is incorrect, or my personal "radar" needs calibration. I am certain to find out from your feedback. I believe that there is an ongoing right-wing bias on CBC's "The National" . I do not refer to the "hard news" stories", but to the "soft news'"and opinions shown on the program. Let's start with Wendy Mesley's "In Depth Report" broadcast on Feb.1st, and available on their website. The segment is introduced by the host/newsreader, Mr. Mansbridge, who starts off by mentioning "political attack ads"; that there are no limits on pre-campaign spending; "that your tax dollars could be why we're seeing more of them"; and, "which parties think that's a problem, and which parties think that's fine". However, the question posed to the viewers by Ms. Mesley is, "should we stop bankrolling federal parties?". The segment then concentrates on recent attack ads. "Taxpayer dollars could exlain a big chunk of them". Emphasis on the word "could". I would think that the importation of American republican campaign strategists by the conservative party "could" also explain the ads, and would be considered by many as the prime reason that we are now reduced to american-style attack ads. The public funding rebate to federal arties is mentioned, as a "large subsidy of taxpayer dollars". Alas, no mention is made of the cost to the taxpayer of tax deductions for contributtions to federal parties. an important ommission, as this also consists of "taxpayer dollars", as are all tax breaks provided to some at the expense of all. One must note that the topic of public funding of parties re-surfaced on Jan. 12th, when, in an interview with The National Post, Mr. Harper indicated that it was his desire to cut off direct public funding of political parties. It was followed up by an article in The Globe&Mail on Jan. 21st by Tom Flanagan, which indicated that he favoured the cutting of public funding and the return of Corporate Donations to party funding. As a professional, Ms. Mesley [and the CBC] would be well aware of these two items in the press. Ms. Mesly then proceeds to 'interview" Mr. Flanagan, who is given free rein to to re-express the same opinions already given in the G&M, and already known to the public. While Mr. Flanagan is certainly entitled to his views, his was the only interview on the segment. and, of course, only represents the the perspective of the extreme right. The ND's and the Greens were ignored, and theie positions never considered. There is no mention that "cracking the numbers" [a CBC term] also shows that if we eliminated the subsidy [tax refund] on donations, the savings would provide up to $5 of funding for each vote received, at no extra cost to the taxpayer. To sum up, the segment appears to be constructed to elicit a negative opinion on the public funding of federal parties. It contains pejorative and indefinite terms - "stop bankrolling"; "subsidy tap"; "could explain"; "probably promoting"; "wean the parties"; etc. The segment ends with a hearty chuckle from Mr. Mansbridge, when Ms. Mesley theorizes "maybe they just have nobody who knows", in reference to the Liberal party. "Accuracy, Fairness, Balance, Impartiality, Integrity" is part of the CBC credo, and I do not believe that this "in depth" report followed any of those tenets. My second example is National Post writer Mr. R. Murphy, who occupies the only spot on "The National' reserved for opinion. Mr. Murphy is well known for his conservative-leaning opinions, and he is entitled to them. What I question is why no on-air reposte or rebuttal is allowed, when he makes claims such as, that Canadians, as a people, "hate Americans", when it was perfectly clear that they only loathed the Bush administration. Of course, Mr. Murphy dropped that when Mr. Obama was elected. Now he talks of a "love affair with Obama". We are not permitted to ask, "do we still hate Americans, Mr. Murphy?" His ranting about coalition governments being somehow "undemocratic" was not subject to questioning or debate, and indeed, that view was rncouraged by Mr. Mansbridge during the election coverage. To compound this, he often pops up on "The Panel" and on election coverage as well, always with his right-wing perspective. Balance? Fairness? Where is the integrity of a national broadcast news program that allows for only one opinion, and a right-wing one at that? The third example would be, of course, Mr. Mansbridges's "panel" It includes a conservative writer [another NatPost alumni], who favours 'market solutions; and a former PC strategist who is chairman of a olling firm. I would submit that having a conservative pollster as a political pundit is a contradiction to the terms of Fairness, Integrity etc. that CBC News claims to hold so dear. In fairness, the third member of the panel, as a writer for the Toronto Star, would be considered to be center-left by conservative partisans. However, it is appears that she is on the panel for her expertise on Quebec and it's issues, and not because she is the most intelligent person on that set, which she clearly is. Those are my opinions and observations on the topic. It is my hope that those on this forum might wish to make their own observastions on the topic, or debate mine . Thanks, Birdfeeder.
Perceived Right-wing Bias On CBC's The National
The CBC News Dept. should be shut down - it's basically right-wing propaganda now and has been for too many years.
Jason Kenney would LOVE to see it shut down. The CBC had just exposed the lying bastards:
Trouble with the links in this email? View the online version at: www.friends.ca/files/html/11feb17-kenney-p.html
Dear George,
Yesterday, one of Prime Minister Harper's closest confidantes, Immigration Minister Jason Kenney let the cat out of the bag when he blurted out to the Canadian Press that "the CBC lies all the time".
Ever since Harper became Leader of the Opposition, and particularly since becoming Prime Minister, FRIENDS has tracked his statements and those of his colleagues on public broadcasting and cultural sovereignty. A disturbing pattern of double-speak has emerged.
We believe that Kenney's February 16th comment reflects his boss's opinion, and betrays a sinister and hostile view of Canadian public broadcasting - a view completely out of sync with Canadian public opinion.
FRIENDS urgently needs your help to expose this hidden agenda before it is too late, and to preserve public broadcasting for future generations of Canadians.
As you know, since November when the Parliamentary Secretary to the Heritage Minister mused publicly that "maybe it's time we get out of the broadcasting business", FRIENDS has been working flat out to remind Harper that Canadians value public broadcasting and want it to be preserved and strengthened.
Already almost one hundred thousand Canadians have signed the I LOVE CBC petition. Tens of thousands have written their MPs. Scores of meetings have been arranged locally with MPs and nominated candidates in closely-contested federal ridings. On Monday, FRIENDS placed a full-page ad in the Hill Times, the Parliament Hill newspaper - a Valentine's Day message to the Prime Minister carrying the message that "78% of Canadians use the CBC each week", "81% believe that CBC is one of the things that distinguishes Canada from the United States", and that "Canadians of all political stripes love the CBC".
Jason Kenney's comment that "the CBC lies all the time" strips away all camouflage, exposing for all to see the Harper government's real attitude to Canadian public broadcasting. It is a clear warning that there is a grave threat to the future of public broadcasting in this country, a warning we would be unwise to ignore.
If Kenney had made his odious comment about an individual, and could not prove that it was true, he would be found guilty of libel in a court of law. In the case of our national public broadcaster, that finding can come only from the court of public opinion. FRIENDS' fundamental priority in the coming months will be to hold the Harper government to account by demonstrating audibly and visibly how much its true intentions fly in the face of Canadian public opinion. In other words - an ounce of prevention!
We need your help to mount this campaign. Please take a moment to invest in FRIENDS' I LOVE CBC campaign now, before it is too late.
Standing up for CBC is standing up for Canada!
Sincerely,
Ian Morrison
Spokesperson
FRIENDS of Canadian Broadcasting
P.S. Please help to expose the Harper Conservatives' sinister and hostile agenda for public broadcasting by making a secure donation right now.
P.S. If you would prefer to send your contribution by postal mail, here is the address:
FRIENDS of Canadian Broadcasting
Box 200/238 - 131 Bloor Street West
Toronto, ON M5S 1R8
FRIENDS of Canadian Broadcasting is an independent watchdog for Canadian programming and is not affiliated with any broadcaster or political party.
This email was sent to {user_data~E-mail Address}. Please help us keep our database up to date by notifying [email protected] of changes in your e-mail address. If you do not wish to receive future fundraising alerts from FRIENDS please reply to this message with "UNSUBSCRIBE FUNDRAISING" in the subject line. To unsubscribe from all FRIENDS e-mails, please write to [email protected].
View FRIENDS' privacy policy.
to me the the degree to which the cbc is right wing is perfectly obvious. not as much as the other private corporate networks, but pretty close. Similar to every other national broadcaster.
This should be expected to some degree, since it exists in the same media environment as all the others, has journalists trained at the same institutions and pulls it's pundits from the same pool. And of course CBC doesn't rise to the level of, say, democracy now since it is in large part funded by right wing entities (governments, ad revenues) which make sure that views never cross the line into truly objective reporting.
Which is why i always laugh when people say the cbc is left leaning. They can never explain how or cite specific examples.
"...to me the the degree to which the cbc is right wing is perfectly obvious. not as much as the other private corporate networks, but pretty close. Similar to every other national broadcaster. " wrote milo204
I don' think that there is any doubt but what that the CBC has a pronounced right wing bias. The Lang and O'Leary Report, "Greed is good, I love money. Less government and lower taxes." jumps immediately to mind, though there are many others... Mansbridge himself, the circumcised talking head.
I can't tell any major difference, for their US-centric content and point of view, between CBC and CNN. I go to CNN all the time, because I figure that if all I can get is US news and perspectives, I might as well go right to the friggin' source.
And this pains me. I have lived much of my life in geographic circumstances where, all I could get was CBC Radio. I loved CBC. I listened on the CBC Radio to the fall of Dienbienphu, at the defeat of the French Foreign Legion in Vietnam. (CBC Radio is still a tad better than the tv, editorially.) To see what has become of it pains and pisses me off. It makes me ashamed of my own country.
It's nice to see an official "friend of the CBC" agree with my post. I assume that you agree as you said nothing to refute my observations. Like other posters I also grew up on the CBC, but it no longer has my unbridled support. I do not fear cuts destroying the CBC, as it seems to me that it is being destroyed from within. Perhaps the left/right criticism of the CBC comes from it's shameless sucking up to whicherver of the bankers' parties is in power? I understand that they must kowtow a certain extent to whomever is in power, in fear of losing funding. However, CBC News used to be immune from the drama. Perhaps the staff are looking to future senate appointments, as were given to partisan conservative reporters at CTV? The rude treatment of Layton by the chief interviewer and the "soft" interviews of Harper lead me to believe that there is a right-wing bias. The cheerleeding of the Afghan War would gag a goat. It's a pity that Candians have to rely on Foreign Media to get a complete picture of what is happening over there. Now, we have stringers who lliterally perform like bad actors, waving their hands and "emoting". Not all of them, for sure, but you know the ones that I mean. The direction must come from above, and I don't mean the heavens. There is clearly one person wearing too many hats on The National. Almost no hard news on it now, after the endless promos and introductions to "stories", and the slow-talking chief newsreader. Yet there is lots of time on the program for infonews and soft news stories, and let's not forget the "in depth reports" that are anything but "in depth". I wonder if we would be better off by getting rid of the high-priced "personalties" and celebrity staffers, and put that money in to more reporting. For myself, I no longer blindly support anything. With CBC News seeming to head down the same road as Global/faux, I care not if there are cuts. Please ask you executive friends why there is no counterpoint to Murphy's right-wing diatribes, and while your at it please enquire about CBC policy on staff having inter-personal relationships with bosses and executives. If CBC News and it's "friends" will not respond to criticsm, why would any support it?
I was rather shocked today hearing "The At-Issue Panel" unanimously rip Harper over the Oda affair. Then Rex Murphy did the same.
They all voiced serious concerns over the arrogance and lack of respect for Canadian democratic institutions and practices that Harper's government has shown over the past five years.
"Even a blind squirrel finds a nut now and then". Even the conservative partisans can not defend the antics of Oda. Perhaps this could be considered a "witch hunt", the same as the nullified audit of mps' and senators? Jack could have picked up a lot of support from the uncommited voters if he had backed the people on that issue, instead of laying down with the bankers' parties. It's not too late to put it on the agenda, with this most recent case of a no-account mp/minister. While there may not be a "monster under the bed", Canadians wanted reassurance on the matter, and without a doubt a few insects and dirtballs would have been found.
birdfeeder: "It's nice to see an official "friend of the CBC" agree with my post. I assume that you agree as you said nothing to refute my observations"
If Kenney's thoughts about the CBC ("the CBC lies all the time") does not convince you that I think your observations about the CBC are a sign of political immaturity - if not just plain dotty - I'll have to give up the attempt as a waste of time. CBC cannot be as liberal (small 'l') as they used to be before the populace started playing the market - not while drawing on the public purse - but there are good elements that must not be tossed along with the bad. You just have to grit your teeth and believe that the Cons won't always prevail. Perhaps we need that incoming "Fox North" to remind people like yourself what a real broadcasting pit looks like . I can hear the wailing and gnashing of teeth now.
The Lang and O'Leary Report, "Greed is good, I love money. Less government and lower taxes." jumps immediately to mind, though there are many others...
The very few times I have watched parts of this show, O'Leary has been counter-balanced by the other half of this team, the much more calm and relaxed Amanda Lang, who shoots down O'Leary's right wing hogwash quite effectively.
"Friend", I am not all concerned about your ill-formed opinion of me, so I won't resort to your sort of name-calling. "People like yourself"? Do you refer to people who will not defend the indefensible?. I would be interested to know what you consider to be the "bad" elements at CBC News. Hmmm? I do not suggest to throw the baby out with the bathwater, but for you to suggest that we leave the baby sitting in the dirty water smacks of a lack of credibility on the issue on your part. Partisan boosters, whether for parties, corps or organisations, give up both their credibility and effectiveness when they fail to act on problems within their facoured group. I do not believe that CBC News will increase it's audience by pandering to the right, or the left for that matter. When China vetoed a matter at the Security council, our own global/faux reported it as "UN refuses to act". The European broadcasters reported it as a veto. CBC broadcast news did not report it at all. To suggest that we can not offer constructive criticism pf CBC News because that plays in to the hands of the extreme right only enables the destruction of CBC News, and possibly the rest of the CBC as well. Maybe Murphy will leave for Faux news north, and his enablers as well. Next time, please address the topic and save your personal recriminations for your "friends". "Just the facts, ma'am" - Joe Friday
Interesting thread - I have to say that I've spent most of my adult life outside of Canada and my exposure to the CBC says that they're more than slightly biased to the left.
can you elaborate abnormal? i can think of tons of examples in the cbc's news coverage of a right wing bias, but not many left biases spring to mind.
right wing: coverage of the g20, business issues, trade deals, telecom, the recession, politics generally...this goes back many years, but has been getting worse recently.
granted they do give some coverage to "left" issues (that's not a "bias" mind you) like the environment, rare labour coverage, etc. but it's hardly bending the facts to make lefties look good!
plus look at the pool of pundits. tom flanagan, andrew coyne, cast of dragons den, stein from the national post and other mainstream media figures. on the left, i can recall giving a couple of minutes to the head of the autoworkers union during the bailouts but that's about it.
During the israeli raid on the humanitarian convoy, the gave israeli apologists plenty of time and used IDF doctored videos as evidence. They gave kevin neish about 30 seconds. Thats a right bias if i ever saw one.
also, they refuse to cover many issues the left cares about. There's no "labour" hour, but there are hours of biz coverage every day! Also lax on free trade deals, foreign policy (total lack of objectivity on haiti, palestine, afghanistan, colombia), our mining sector etc.
Thank goodnes the CBC has helped turn us mild mannered, polite Canadians into citizens who give a dam and are willing to call assholes for what they are. Great thread.
If I'm not mistaken,The Reform Party is trying to beef up the CBC's rank and file with Harper friendly ideologues by appointing some of Harper's lackeys.
I remember reading that the Royal Canadian Air Farce's final episode was not a coincidence with the Reform Party's winning election.
The fix is in..all televised media is owned by those who are bankrolling the Reform Party's kitty and 90% of all newspapers.
The effort to regulate the internet is the next step in controlling ALL information and the Reform Party (along with all the other right wing parties in federal,provincial and global politics) has the huge billionaire media tycoons in their back pocket--and vice versa.
Electoral reform to rid party finance from corporate control is the only answer but is as likely as Harper donning bright pink hot pants and dancing on a float at a Gay Pride parade.
We're at the mercy of ruthless billionaires whose only motivation is turning a profit...It was only a matter of time that private media overlords would take control of public media..
So it's not a huge revelation that the CBC is no longer a politically balanced media that tries to be fair and honest---only some bottom feeding raging extreme right asshole would confuse it as a left wing anything.
Ok, what the fuck was Michael Coren just doing on the CBC being interviewed about KAIROS of all things. He kept going on about Israel, referring to it as the "Jewish State". He was on with the Anglican Primate of Toronto, who had a dignified defence, but he wasn't up to matching Coren's particular dismissive and aggressive style IMHO.
Rosemary Barton was doing the interview, and I actually think she's not too bad most of the time, especially compared to that irritating ingratiating suck-up putz Evan Soloman, but this just shouldn't have happened.
If you can stomach the gory detailsI'm sure they're online.
I hit the mute button when Coren showed up Oldgoat. You have more courage than me.
The replacement for the Don Newman show seems to fit into a pattern. What Rick Salutin once called the poor Canadian imitation of an American cultural form, be it the sitcom or the cop show, or in this instance the CNN trademark "controversial" script. The idea is that commentators are invited so as to maximize the zingers from two sides over an issue, so that the issue itself gets lost. Intelligent discussion is not part of the CNN scenario, now overtaken by the FOX "gang up on anybody who they do not agree with" style show.
The thoughtful discussion was exemplified by the Lewis, Keirans, and Camp segment on Morningside. It was run off the air by the Fraser Institute which invented its own ratings for bias, from its own perspective natch. Since they were the ones complaining they got heard by the Conservative government of the day. It appointed John Crispo to the board who was a professional complainer about left wing bias. He got hours of airtime to set out his arguments, which were silly.
Minister Jason K. was actually saying Radio-Canada lies, not the CBC lies. Two different organizations, the French side is more independent, more serious, and much more successful in finding an audience for radio and tv. Language helps of course, but Radio-Canada still gives me the feelings so well expressed above about how important CBC radio once was for connecting us to the world, Canada, and each other. The Sunday morning radio show is wonderful for instance.
hhmmm, seeing that i'm mildly bilingual, maybe i'll start listening to cbc in french....
Clearly, CBC people have a death wish. What else could explain the fact that "they refuse to cover many issues the left cares about?" On the other hand, perhaps they feel obliged to act as a "public" broadcaster,put forward some conservative opinion, and not have cabinet ministers saying they "lie all the time?" Perhaps they have a life wish?
Unfortunately, babble does not represent the mainstream. Kind of a wishful thinking crowd, hereabouts. And shit will continue to happen, but we should not join the nihilist crowd. That's too easy.
"Nihilist crowd"? Are you referring to the many who would like to see CBC News live up to it's credo? Or are you referring to the neocons who would prefer to dismantle it completely? It's interesting that you use a play right out of the neocon handbook, eg, attacking the messenger[s] when unable to refute the message. CBC News appears to be rotting from the top, and, at least here in Redmonton, rotting at the roots as well. The point made by one poster is well taken. Flying on Air Canada, which showed both CBC News and Radio-Canada, I was often jealous of the fact that the french speakers got hard news from around the globe and country, whilst we suffer through what I affectionately call "peter's pablum". The fact that you would admit that there are indeed, "bad elements" at/on CBC News, yet try to paint any soul who protests as a "nihilist" indicates to all who read your posts on the matter that the "organization" comes before adherence to it's credo, in your world. I am shocked that you consider yourself as a wishful thinker and not part of the mainstream, how unfortunate for you. Are all "friends of the cbc" so narrow minded as to ignore the obvious problems at CBC News, I wonder?
I'd like to see the CBC mandate if there is one available online - I doubt it'll have anything to say about left, right, or centre audiences. It'll probably say the CBC must try to reach the entire spectrum of listeners.
"Nihilist crowd"? Are you referring to the many who would like to see CBC News live up to it's credo? Or are you referring to the neocons who would prefer to dismantle it completely? It's interesting that you use a play right out of the neocon handbook, eg, attacking the messenger[s] when unable to refute the message. CBC News appears to be rotting from the top, and, at least here in Redmonton, rotting at the roots as well. The point made by one poster is well taken. Flying on Air Canada, which showed both CBC News and Radio-Canada, I was often jealous of the fact that the french speakers got hard news from around the globe and country, whilst we suffer through what I affectionately call "peter's pablum". The fact that you would admit that there are indeed, "bad elements" at/on CBC News, yet try to paint any soul who protests as a "nihilist" indicates to all who read your posts on the matter that the "organization" comes before adherence to it's credo, in your world. I am shocked that you consider yourself as a wishful thinker and not part of the mainstream, how unfortunate for you. Are all "friends of the cbc" so narrow minded as to ignore the obvious problems at CBC News, I wonder?
The nihilists fall into the loud complaining crowd that will not condescend to join with Friends in fighting back, birdfeed. That is just part of the indiscriminate, mindless prattle, the noise of "the left" in the wilderness. There are very fine elements in CBC radio still intact, as DC points out.
Of course there are many fine elements left on CBC radio, and some on CBC tv as well. Just not very many at CBC NEWS. Your condesending attitute to any who would offer criticism of CBC NEWS [or any part of CBC, including management and imported advisors] is indicative of the attitude that exist at the top of the management chain at the CBC and CBC NEWS. You remind me of that zaccarelli [sic] chap who stonewalled to protect "the organisation". Thanks for your admission, quote "still intact" that all is not well there, but we already know that, which was the purpose of the thread. Continue your blanket condemnation of any who would wish to see the obvious problems at the ceeb corrected, it helps to prove my point. Thanks for your help in that, and may God help the CBC if you are considered as one of it's friends, "friend". And please tune in to rex and peter on The National, for your fill of "mindless prattle", george michael.
If enough peple (voters) come demonstrably onside, the bastards may yet not dare to shut down the CBC. If enough people prattle on about the obvious instead of joining the petitioners - and all that you say would be so very bloody obvious to anyone doing poli-sci 101 - we may lose it. Period. Conservatives understand this, but they get their way by playing to the ignorance and bias of narrowly focused "issue" people . Wasting people's hard-earned taxes on public broadcasting always plays well - among people who don't understand that the individual Canadian pays less for public media than people of any other country. You don't understand that threat, or Conservative polling, do you. You reflect the depth of thinking of the "me" generation.
@#$%ing frustrated. Trying to absorb all the info. Having a hard time keeping up...
I don't know where you were at the start of the 80's, but I was neck-deep leading a labour action in Ft McMurray, the end result of a betrayal of local unions by their international negotiators. I learned first-hand of the dangers of simple-minded supporters of this 'n' that. When I gave a speech at a labour hall in Edmonton to twelve hundred union tradespople of every colour and creed, it was cheered to the roof because my words were true and my aim was "on the target so direct". Within days, the contractors buckled, and we brought back to the workers double-time and a decent wage increase. The suits bought a planted rumor in the press that we were organized province-wide, and that every plant in Alberta would strike. We called ourselves UTAC, United Trades Action Commitee, this after a very kind lady labour lawyer [who is now a judge], advised us that my invented monicker, Northern Alberta Trades Alliance sounded "too warlike". I won't bore you with details of the great personal cost to me and a few others. I learned hard lessons about the deceptive practices of the media , including the vaunted Ceeb, as they tried to uncover the names of "the ringleaders", a popular term in the yellow press. Swinecrude and Stuncor dearly wanted the names so that we could be sued for every bright, shiny penny that they lost during the action. I learned of the corruption of the international trade unions to the south of our country, and the collusion between business and state. I learned that any organisation can be rotten at the top, yet still have a few green branches. Why did we prevail? Because we were right. I expose myself to an internet crank such as yourself, who could easily be considered a provacateur, for one reason only. Do not confuse me with your whiners on the right and the left, with which you are so familar. I am a "doer", and I do not fear the truth, as you so obviously do, since you have addressed none of the issues in the original post. None. Zero. Nada. You might yet inspire me to start a youtube/facebook group, called, perhaps, "Real Friends Of The CBC", where more time could be spent exposing the right-wing bias that you seek to sweep under the rug in the name of some greater good. A true "friend" of the CBC would not hide behind specious arguments and the boogeyman of a neocon menace. This thread is already serving it's purpose, judging by it's numrous hits, and I have no doubt that CBC insiders will be advised of it, though they will do nothing without public pressure and open debate. There is a saying out here, "all hat and no cattle", and it applies to you, "friend".
You seriously need paragraphs. I want to hear you but I can't.
Pardon me. Solidarity.
But I hear you. I'm working hard at reading it.
"boogeyman of a neocon menace. "
And you are familiar with the work of Tom Flanagan? You were just as naive back then, eh pardner? What part of the world do you think old Tom came from? What intellectual environment spawned him? Oh what the hell. Of course CBC has been corrupted and is running scared. But it must not be lost as a national voice. Not on top of everything else. And good for you back in '82 or whenever. My strike experience didn't end happily but it allowed me a peek a few years later at where old Tom came from. Some boogeyman...
We have much common ground. I assure you that I do indeed know about Mr. Flanagan and the rest of "The Calgary School". Cripes, If the american Fred Lee Morton comes to power I may have to immigrate to a more progressive province. I think that where we differ is that I do not think that CBC News lives up to it's credo, mentioned in the first post, and that by being "corrupted and running scared",as you so aptly put it, it's is caving in to the obvious neocon menace, rather than exposing it. Certainly the extremists will pick on "The Nature of things" and "The Fifth Estate", but that will happen anyway and those programs can stand on the truth that they reveal. But was the public good served with that put-up award given to the infamous Mulroney, championed by both Murphy and Mansbridge on a national broadcast news program? A one-time "award" given out by a Corporate Media Relations Firm? They never made much mention of the corp. behind the bogus "award", or it's intention of trying to reform the public opininion of the rightly hated Mulroney, a darling of Murphy, by the way. The point that I am trying to make is that the neocon extremists want to see the end of public broadcasting, so now CBC News is bending over to the right to placate because it is being mandated, at some level, from within. By giving up it's integrity, CBC News is losing respect [and ratings]. Suncor now uses a phoney rainbow in it's logo, and a BS "Mission Statement' that would make a cocodile weep, it is such baloney. If CBC News can not adhere to it's masthead principles of "Fairness, Balance, Impartiality, Integrity", then what is it's use? To gently move us to the right, as Murphy does with his leading questions on CBC radio? All news stories can not be covered, certainly, but the stories that "The National" ignores, in favour of "vanity" and "puff" pieces is telling. If they wish to "dumb down" their entertainment offerings with cheap regional rip-offs of "Rockford Files"and "Little House", that is their perogative. But to corrupt their flagship national broadcast news with a right-wing bias, well, they are going to get a fight from those of us who do do not want such bias on CBC News. I can easily defend "The Nature Of Things" against it's rabid detractors, but how can I defend the integrity of CBC News, The National, when it now appears tp have none? Please, view the "In Depth Report" mentioned in the first post. Give me your opinions on that, I would genuinely like to hear what you think. I do believe that the time to fight is now, not after CBC News has been hollowed-out by corporate management who either are part of, or bowing to, the extreme right. Let it die on it's feet, fighting, if that is to be it's fate, representing truth and fairness, and not on it's knees kowtowing to the corporate right that has complete control of media and democracy in this country. "Running scared", does not change the end result for the prey, it simply provides a longer chase for the hunter. In any case, I have made my point, and would like to hear more opinions on the subject from the many posters here. 
I do make apology for the poor construction of my posts, as I can not seem master the "editing" controls.
Keep it up, birdfeeder. Yours is a refreshing voice here.
About that formatting; just hit "enter" twice to create paragraphs; indentation isn't necessary.
We're making progress toward understanding what "the other" is getting at, birdfeeder. Neo-cons are real, not "boogeymen", and CBC National is a sellout. I gave up TV a couple of years back so that I could buy more books and booze ( ditto with the cell phone) so I can only imagine what has happened to CBC TV news in the past two years.
I feel your pain, but the recent turfing of the CEO and the goals voiced by the newcomer could restore more usefulness to the network, and that is a primary goal. There will be more Canadian content, and the $savings will allow more local stations without asking Parliament for more funding. CBC became a primary institution holding this country together, and it can still perform that function while we figure out how to restore health to the economy without firesales of assets like our public broadcaster.
The News Dept is basically right-wing scum now, and needs to be shut down. Off the air, the sooner the better.
While I grow increasingly disgusted with how the CBC presents everything (the diction itself of their presenters is appalling), I completely disagree that CBC News ought to be dismantled. Doing so would contribute to the dumbing-down of news coverage that the corporate media are so eagely pursuing.
[ed.]
Oh yeah, "sychophant" means something like "brown-noser." It would be nice if babblers would use this word correctly.
ALQ I agree with you in that birdfeeder is a refreshing change to some of the usual CBC sycophants we have around here.
And I actually believe him and what he is sharing with us.
Of course the CBC has some good stuff but the News Dept has been a propaganda machine for the Liberals forever it seems, and now even for the Conservatives. The News Dept is basically right-wing scum now, and needs to be shut down. Off the air, the sooner the better.
Who cares how the meal is served if it's a shitty meal.
Who cares how the meal is served it is a shitty meal.
That's the nihilist spirit, NR. Sink the whole effin ship.
(With apologies to Jacobi and Turgenev and the Mansons )
First, thanks to al-qa'bong from babba looey, for the editing tip.
I do not wish to burn down the house, so to speak. However, if the house has rats in the walls, cockroaches in the halls, and termites in the foundation, then I would not consider building additions on it until the problems had been remedied. To believe promises made by CBC management? Well, a lot of hopefull Canadians believed Harper's promises of a more open and accountable government. It is simply more weasel words that must be decoded. For example, here, when the corporate government speaks of "balance" or "stakeholders", it translates as "we will allow our corporate buddies to do as they please, but we will put a nice coat of paint on it so that it looks good. More CBC stations? To what purpose? To disseminate the "dull peter and rex show" to a broader audience? More scripted "reality" shows? Corporations and politicians have a long record of exploiting the hope that exisits within people. That is a given.
Like many, it broke my heart to see those black-gloved thugs slaughter that newcomer at the Vancouver airport. What truly inflamed me, was the automatic defense and cover-up, "for the good of the organization", that came in to play, when any impartial observer could see that that institution needed major reform. I would not dare to think that the CBC could ever be reformed. I do think, however, that CBC News could be swept clean of the "celebrity culture" that sucks up needed resources, and the corn-fed management that would literally be afraid to travel this country by greyhound or rail to find, and report on, what is happening in this country. And I do not refer to celebrity road trips such as dull peter's arctic tour, which diverted scarce resources from the newsroom. I was taught that our system of government was a a hybrid of the best of the British and American systems. It has now been perverted in to something that seems to have the worst aspects of those systems. And I say the same about the CBC, and especially, it's "news infotainment" division. For myself, I will admit that some of my opinions span both sides of the left-right divide. I have never fared well with either "side". I am proud of that. I am not proud of what I call "Canada's New CBC". It is comforting to know, [judging from these posts], that my perceptions are correct, and not in need of adjustment. Perhaps one of the veteran posters will start a thread "How to Improve The CBC and Return It To The Public". God bless the Queen, the Maple Leaf forever, etc. etc.
birdfeeder: " especially, it's "news infotainment" division. For myself, I will admit that some of my opinions span both sides of the left-right divide. I have never fared well with either "side". I am proud of that..."
Specificity is good, in all things, birdfeeder, particularly when explaining exactly where CBC is failing. Good to know nihilism isn't your thing. Heartening.
They played this Phil Ochs tune on "Sunday Morning" today. I've played it myself on community radio; it's a beaut:
"I cried when they shot Medgar Evers
Tears ran down my spine
I cried when they shot Mr. Kennedy
As though I'd lost a father of mine
But Malcolm X got what was coming
He got what he asked for this time
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal
I go to civil rights rallies
And I put down the old D.A.R.
I love Harry and Sidney and Sammy
I hope every colored boy becomes a star
But don't talk about revolution
That's going a little bit too far
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal
I cheered when Humphrey was chosen
My faith in the system restored
I'm glad the commies were thrown out
of the A.F.L. C.I.O. board
I love Puerto Ricans and Negroes
as long as they don't move next door
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal
The people of old Mississippi
Should all hang their heads in shame
I can't understand how their minds work
What's the matter don't they watch Les Crane?
But if you ask me to bus my children
I hope the cops take down your name
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal
I read New Republic and Nation
I've learned to take every view
You know, I've memorized Lerner and Golden
I feel like I'm almost a Jew
But when it comes to times like Korea
There's no one more red, white and blue
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal
I vote for the Democratic party
They want the U.N. to be strong
I go to all the Pete Seeger concerts
He sure gets me singing those songs
I'll send all the money you ask for
But don't ask me to come on along
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal
Once I was young and impulsive
I wore every conceivable pin
Even went to the socialist meetings
Learned all the old union hymns
But I've grown older and wiser
And that's why I'm turning you in
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal"
Phil Ochs was one of the greats. fine memories of scratchy recordings.
Once I was young and naive,
I wore every conceivable pin,
Then I went to union meetings
and learned all the old union hymns.
And now I'm older and wiser, and when i was finally turned in,
I knew that labels and pins meant little,
what counts is what's found within.
rip, Mr. Ochs, and thanks for the inspiration. I will close out my posts on this topic, thanks to all.
An "Alberta Innovates" advertising section in the Globe and Mail attacked the Nature of Things' "Tipping Point: The Age of the Oil Sands", aired last month: "The Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP) recognizes it might be a bit of a leap for anti-fossil-fuel activists to move from vilifying industry to admiring it, but it shouldn't be beyond the realm of possibility to expect serious people to consider serious science."
They haul out the lapdog scientists, "Canada's most venerable scientific authorities, the Royal Society of Canada's (RSC) Academy of Science" to refute the major critical issues treated in Tipping Point:
.Impact of oil sands contaminants on downstream residents: "There is currently no credible evidence...(although) More monitoring focused on human contaminant exposures is needed to address First Nations and community concerns."
.Impacts on regional water supply: "Current industrial water-use demands do not threaenthe viability of the Athabasca River system IF the Water Management Framework developed to protect in-stream, ecosystem flow needs is fully implemented and enforced "
.Impacts on regional water quality and groundwater quality: Current evidence suggests.....etc. etc.
And the last word of this ad: "It's a pity the CBC doesn't let science get in the way of a good story."
Small wonder federal ministers say the CBC "lies". No doubt the CBC's life would be very short under a majority Con government.
But back to the neverland of nitpicking, nihilist idiocy.
I'm perpetually in shock when progressive folks mistake baby for bathwater - as in: "The government sucks, so let's get rid of government!" That plays well in the U.S.
George - just a word of thanks for your unremitting defence of publicly owned broadcasting, irrespective of its flaws.
I'm perpetually in shock when progressive folks mistake baby for bathwater - as in: "The government sucks, so let's get rid of government!" That plays well in the U.S. George - just a word of thanks for your unremitting defence of publicly owned broadcasting, irrespective of its flaws.
Some of us are saying that we can get more bang for the buck by re-prioritizing the existing funding envelope toward new and emerging forms of journalism. What we have now is a publicly funded information bureaucracy that competes for attention using the same messaging, content, and analysis as the business owned interests.
If you like listening to the radio and are looking for a wider variety of perspectives, get a shortwave radio and you can tune into Radio Havana Cuba, NHK Japan, Voice of Justice Iran, BBC Africa Service, Voice of America, Voice of Russia, China Radio International, all of whom have English programming. Several of those mentioned broadcast from Radio Canada's shortwave antenna site (by reciprocal arrangement) at Sackville, New Brunswick so reception is good.
When the UN Security Council met to vote on the Libya no-fly decision I immediately tuned to Voice of Russia to get a feel for if a veto was possible.
There are also plenty of Christian preachers, right wing opinions, Spanish broadcasts, pirate stations, static and more. But if you like radio, it's where the action is. Just sayin'
I'm perpetually in shock when progressive folks mistake baby for bathwater - as in: "The government sucks, so let's get rid of government!" That plays well in the U.S. George - just a word of thanks for your unremitting defence of publicly owned broadcasting, irrespective of its flaws.Some of us are saying that we can get more bang for the buck by re-prioritizing the existing funding envelope toward new and emerging forms of journalism. What we have now is a publicly funded information bureaucracy that competes for attention using the same messaging, content, and analysis as the business owned interests.
Yeah, I also think I should be recognized by everyone as the forward-thinking brilliant mind that I am, and regrow a full head of hair besides. Unfortunately just saying it should be that way is not going to make it happen.
Similarly, I don't see how destroying the public system system is going to magically produce another system that broadcasts all your news, all the time. I don't even thing that would be a good and fair thing.
It is not just that that fact the only people who agree with you tactically are those on the right wing who want to see public broadcasting destroyed. The fact is you have no plan whatsoever, and no rational reason why the system should be destroyed rather than reformed.
Do you recommend the same approach to health care? Or selling off all crown assets and trying to re-natinalize it all in the hopes that it will be perfect next time?
Sorry, but that line of thinking makes no sense to me, and I don't see that you have made a case for it at all.
You claim to want to build something. Maybe you should start with a hammer rather than a crowbar.
Similarly, I don't see how destroying the public system system is going to magically produce another system that broadcasts all your news, all the time. I don't even thing that would be a good and fair thing.
I believe that if we're ever to involve into the public discourse all of the different and equally valid voices within this country that are largely silenced, we will need to move away from the 'all eggs in one basket' approach to publicly funded media. We desperately need a counterbalance to the mainstream inspired mediocrity on the one hand as exemplified by the CBC, and the usual power friendly din of the other corporate stenographer pools.
@ Slumberjack
So why can you not start to build that?
Indeed, many have done so already, without insisting that the public broadcaster have its throat slit on a pyre beforehand in order to make it happen. In fact, I would think that most people who know anything about the media would welcome broader, and greater coverage, even if it isn't all saying the same thing.
Do you think the CBC (or the National Post or Western Report, for that matter) is somehow standing in the way of your grand plan? Or are you under the assumption that with them gone the government is automatically going to send the gravy train in your direction?
If you are waiting for a cheque in the mail, I think you will be waiting a long time.
And more importantly, would you know what to do with that cheque if it ever did arrive?
@ SlumberjackSo why can you not start to build that?
Indeed, many have done so already, without insisting that the public broadcaster have its throat slit on a pyre beforehand in order to make it happen. In fact, I would think that most people who know anything about the media would welcome broader, and greater coverage, even if it isn't all saying the same thing.
Do you think the CBC (or the National Post or Western Report, for that matter) is somehow standing in the way of your grand plan? Or are you under the assumption that with them gone the government is automatically going to send the gravy train in your direction?
If you are waiting for a cheque in the mail, I think you will be waiting a long time. And more importantly, would you know what to do with that cheque if it ever did arrive?
Quite aside from your drivel about waiting for a government cheque to arrive in the mail, what we're actually talking about here if you have any interest in it, involves sustainable leveraging of the range of alternate voices and narratives across this country toward national level exposure.