CBC really is the PR instrument of the Liberal Party

23 posts / 0 new
Last post
blairz blairz's picture
CBC really is the PR instrument of the Liberal Party

So, topic is in fact terribly naive and obvious,  and that's OK because so am I. I was born in Canada but grew up in the US. I check out CBC and Rabble religiously to get a feel for my native country.

The orgasms of glee I heard CBC's election coverage bothered me a bit, but then again most new governments get positive spin. Today I read a commentary that pronounced the Liberals adjusted refugee targets was a sign that Trudeau is listening to the people. Not that he is breaking a promise, or flip-flopping but rather he is responding to the increased concerns of Canadians following the attacks in Paris. I don't think FOX News was ever any more sycophantic. I could go on but you get my point. Help me with this, be kind(to me, not the CBC) has it always been this stupid?

Pondering

But he has taken the wiser decision. I want governments to break bad "promises" or what I refer to as campaign commitments. The greater commitment is to govern well. I would consider condemning his decision to be partisan. It isn't just the CBC supporting his decision. The provinces and even refugee resettlement NGOs wanted more time.

They committed to 25K between November 4th and December 31st. Now it has been extended to February 29th. Even if it takes to the end of March instead I will still consider the core commitment kept.

I would rather they do the right thing than keep a campaign commitment.

Even though they didn't commit to more than that I will be looking for them to keep this "promise" in spirit throughout their mandate. That is I want to see a greater commitment to refugees from around the world for the duration of the government. I read that currently 10% of immigrants are refugees. I want to see a rise in percentage and in absolute numbers.

Another "promise" he made was to have open debate on TPP giving all stakeholders an opportunity to express their concerns. If that debate leads a majority of Canadians to be against the deal and he signs it anyway then I would consider that a broken "promise" because the commitment to debate implies that the decision will be guided by that debate. The commitment needs to be kept in spirit not just to the letter.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Today I read a commentary that pronounced the Liberals adjusted refugee targets was a sign that Trudeau is listening to the people. Not that he is breaking a promise, or flip-flopping but rather he is responding to the increased concerns of Canadians following the attacks in Paris.

Do you feel that most Canadians view this as a broken promise?  Do you think most Canadians wish he'd stuck to "the letter of the law" of his promise?

If Canadians are angry at Trudeau for extending his deadline while CBC presents it as a postive then that's spin.  If Canadians think it's a good idea, and the CBC presents it as a good idea, then it's a bit much to suggest that the CBC is being "sycophantic".

Anyway, doesn't pretty much everyone think that the CBC is deep in the pocket of "the other guy"?

NorthReport

Indeed sad but true.

There is no shame even though it's so blatantly obvious.

 

blairz wrote:

So, topic is in fact terribly naive and obvious,  and that's OK because so am I. I was born in Canada but grew up in the US. I check out CBC and Rabble religiously to get a feel for my native country.

The orgasms of glee I heard CBC's election coverage bothered me a bit, but then again most new governments get positive spin. Today I read a commentary that pronounced the Liberals adjusted refugee targets was a sign that Trudeau is listening to the people. Not that he is breaking a promise, or flip-flopping but rather he is responding to the increased concerns of Canadians following the attacks in Paris. I don't think FOX News was ever any more sycophantic. I could go on but you get my point. Help me with this, be kind(to me, not the CBC) has it always been this stupid?

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Yes.The CBC can be compared with FauxNews...NOT.

Of course the CBC has a favourable view of the Liberals after a decade of cuts under the Conservative government. If I worked for CBC,I'd love the Liberals too.

voice of the damned

alan smithee wrote:

Yes.The CBC can be compared with FauxNews...NOT.

Of course the CBC has a favourable view of the Liberals after a decade of cuts under the Conservative government. If I worked for CBC,I'd love the Liberals too.

And by that logic, if it's determined that voting NDP results in vote-splitting, and hence electing Conservatives, I guess you'd want the CBC to take an unfavourable view of the NDP?

And I question whether the CBC's political posturing is really conncected to justifiable outrage over budget cuts. Her's a contest that the CBC ran before Obama's 2008 inauguration...

http://tinyurl.com/jllzw7f

I don't if that playlist was ever submitted to the White House, but in any case, the whole idea of the contest pretty clearly flowed out of positive feelings for Barack Obama(pretty sure there was no similar contest for Bush's inaugurations).

I don't think Obama's election had much impact on the CBC's budget. More likely, their affection for him was related to an overall bias in favour of centrist liberals, as opposed to either right-wingers or socialists.

Pondering

voice of the damned wrote:
alan smithee wrote:

Yes.The CBC can be compared with FauxNews...NOT.

Of course the CBC has a favourable view of the Liberals after a decade of cuts under the Conservative government. If I worked for CBC,I'd love the Liberals too.

And by that logic, if it's determined that voting NDP results in vote-splitting, and hence electing Conservatives, I guess you'd want the CBC to take an unfavourable view of the NDP?

And I question whether the CBC's political posturing is really conncected to justifiable outrage over budget cuts. Her's a contest that the CBC ran before Obama's 2008 inauguration...

http://tinyurl.com/jllzw7f

I don't if that playlist was ever submitted to the White House, but in any case, the whole idea of the contest pretty clearly flowed out of positive feelings for Barack Obama(pretty sure there was no similar contest for Bush's inaugurations).

I don't think Obama's election had much impact on the CBC's budget. More likely, their affection for him was related to an overall bias in favour of centrist liberals, as opposed to either right-wingers or socialists.

There is nothing biased about the CBC report. It is no secret that Trudeau committed to 25K by December 31st but even NGOs said the pace was too fast for them to cope with. Mayors and provinces also expressed concerns.

Had the CBC attacked Trudeau and accused him of being a flip-flopper that would have been partisan.

Misfit Misfit's picture

Alan, you DO love the Liberals. And I do not expect the Liberals to reverse the cuts to the CBC. They very rarely do reverse Conservative cuts to anything. I think the NDP would have done more to restore funding to the CBC than the Libetals ever will.

voice of the damned

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
Today I read a commentary that pronounced the Liberals adjusted refugee targets was a sign that Trudeau is listening to the people. Not that he is breaking a promise, or flip-flopping but rather he is responding to the increased concerns of Canadians following the attacks in Paris.

Do you feel that most Canadians view this as a broken promise?  Do you think most Canadians wish he'd stuck to "the letter of the law" of his promise?

If Canadians are angry at Trudeau for extending his deadline while CBC presents it as a postive then that's spin.  If Canadians think it's a good idea, and the CBC presents it as a good idea, then it's a bit much to suggest that the CBC is being "sycophantic".

Interesting question. Is a promise still a promise if nobody really wanted you to keep it in the first place?

I'd say the answer is still "yes", because there is more at stake than simply what the public thought of your promise. There is also your credibility as a person who can be trusted to do what you say you're going to do.

I don't personally think much of cosmetic surgery, but if the head of Harvard Medical School were to announce that his research team had perfected a method of triple-the-size penile enlargement that could be done in five minutes with no anesthetic, I think it would be fair for the media to hold them to account if they fail to deliver. HMS is a prestigious institution, and if they make bold claims that turn out to be bogus, that should be newsworthy. Even to people(like me) who don't care about the claims being made.

Furthermore...

Suppose that come the new year, the Liberals have to extend their deadline again, but the public still remains indifferent to the delays. Would you agree that, at THAT point, the failure to deliver on the promise is becoming a serious issue, a black mark on the government's credibility? Or would you still just say "Well, the public doesn't care anyway, so there's no real negative here"?

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Interesting question. Is a promise still a promise if nobody really wanted you to keep it in the first place?

That sounds pretty philosophical when you phrase it like that.  But in a practical sense, I suppose I regard a promise as being a contract between one or more people, and one or more other people.  If the "other people" don't really care if that contract if fulfilled, I assume that God/the Universe doesn't either.

Suppose Dad promises the family some square dancing lessons, then has to walk it back because they'd exceed the family budget.  If Mom and the kids are OK with that (or perhaps even relieved by that) then I don't feel like Dad's tombstone needs to read "Here Lies A Liar".  That goes double if it was Mom and the kids saying "can we really afford them?" or "as much as we love square dancing, we're all pretty busy lately".

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Misfit wrote:
Alan, you DO love the Liberals. And I do not expect the Liberals to reverse the cuts to the CBC. They very rarely do reverse Conservative cuts to anything. I think the NDP would have done more to restore funding to the CBC than the Libetals ever will.

I didn't know I worked for the CBC. Where's my pay cheque?

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Phun Phact:  CBC employees received their last monetary paycheque in 2013.  Since then it's been "a labour of love".

And of course by "labour of love" I mean "labour of love for the Liberal Party of Canada".

voice of the damned

edit

voice of the damned

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
Interesting question. Is a promise still a promise if nobody really wanted you to keep it in the first place?

That sounds pretty philosophical when you phrase it like that.  But in a practical sense, I suppose I regard a promise as being a contract between one or more people, and one or more other people.  If the "other people" don't really care if that contract if fulfilled, I assume that God/the Universe doesn't either.

Suppose Dad promises the family some square dancing lessons, then has to walk it back because they'd exceed the family budget.  If Mom and the kids are OK with that (or perhaps even relieved by that) then I don't feel like Dad's tombstone needs to read "Here Lies A Liar".  That goes double if it was Mom and the kids saying "can we really afford them?" or "as much as we love square dancing, we're all pretty busy lately".

Well, to make it more comparable to an election campaign. Let's say that dad is promising square dancing lessons because he knows little Billy wants them, but daughter Jenny and mom are skeptical.

MOM: Can we really afford square dancing lessons?

DAD: Of course. You need to trust my superior male financial ability on this.

Of course, when it all goes south, Billy is likely to be the only one actually shedding any tears. But, given Dad's framing of the issue(ie. appealing to his own supposed super-abilities), I'd still say mom and Jenny are entitles to keep that in mind when considering how seriously to treat his claims in the future. Especially if those claims are predicated on his superiority as a male.

blairz blairz's picture

Thank you all for responding, and again you all know a lot more about CBC and Canadian politics than I do. However, it still seems to me that the promise was made to get to left of Mulcair, and even if the policy is prudent, it is also cynical. I have read and heard the criticism that Liberals run to the left, and govern to the centre, and this seems the perfect example. As for my comparison of CBC to FOX, of course it's an exaggeration overall, but on this one point not so much.

mark_alfred

blairz wrote:

Thank you all for responding, and again you all know a lot more about CBC and Canadian politics than I do. However, it still seems to me that the promise was made to get to left of Mulcair, and even if the policy is prudent, it is also cynical. I have read and heard the criticism that Liberals run to the left, and govern to the centre, and this seems the perfect example.

Agreed.  The NDP realistically assessed what was possible and promised it (that being 10,000 by the end of the year, and 9,000 a year for the next few years).  The Liberals recklessly promised something they couldn't keep, and then took a discriminatory approach to it.  There is no justifiable reason for discriminating against men on the basis of marital status (IE, preventing single men from coming).  Mulcair speaks of this here:  http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/tom-mulcair-premiers-refugees-1.3331047

Pondering

voice of the damned wrote:

Well, to make it more comparable to an election campaign. Let's say that dad is promising square dancing lessons because he knows little Billy wants them, but daughter Jenny and mom are skeptical.

MOM: Can we really afford square dancing lessons?

DAD: Of course. You need to trust my superior male financial ability on this.

Of course, when it all goes south, Billy is likely to be the only one actually shedding any tears. But, given Dad's framing of the issue(ie. appealing to his own supposed super-abilities), I'd still say mom and Jenny are entitles to keep that in mind when considering how seriously to treat his claims in the future. Especially if those claims are predicated on his superiority as a male.

But in this case it is Billy himself who doesn't want the square-dancing lessons.

The Canadian public wants the Liberals to slow down. Originally much of the processing would have been done here in Canada right on military bases having been cleared by the UN. Now the refugees will be arriving as landed immigrants.

Pondering

mark_alfred wrote:

blairz wrote:

Thank you all for responding, and again you all know a lot more about CBC and Canadian politics than I do. However, it still seems to me that the promise was made to get to left of Mulcair, and even if the policy is prudent, it is also cynical. I have read and heard the criticism that Liberals run to the left, and govern to the centre, and this seems the perfect example.

Agreed.  The NDP realistically assessed what was possible and promised it (that being 10,000 by the end of the year, and 9,000 a year for the next few years).  The Liberals recklessly promised something they couldn't keep, and then took a discriminatory approach to it.  There is no justifiable reason for discriminating against men on the basis of marital status (IE, preventing single men from coming).  Mulcair speaks of this here:  http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/tom-mulcair-premiers-refugees-1.3331047

The UN stated the Liberals did not instruct them not to include single men.

Single men are being accepted.

The selection criteria is vulnerability as assessed by the UNHRC.

NorthReport

CBC is to the Liberals what Fox is to the GOP.  Frown

mark_alfred

Pondering wrote:

The UN stated the Liberals did not instruct them not to include single men.

Single men are being accepted.

The selection criteria is vulnerability as assessed by the UNHRC.

Why then did the CBC report otherwise?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-refugee-plan-women-children-famil...

Slumberjack

After the treatment meted out by the Harper regime, bureaucrats and workers across many arms of government all seem mightly impressed with the annointed one.  They were positvely gushing down at Foreign Affairs when JT visited that part of the realm.  One could say that they're all more or less being tools of the liberal party at the moment.  Government scientists for instance must be dancing a jig.

NDPP

An almost automatic subservience to power and position is a longstanding characteristic of Canadian media. The CBC has it especially bad. Perhaps because a good presstitute can end up a senator, minister or even Governor General some day. It's a natural sort of progression and you've already had lots of practice at telling lies to a public that mostly doesn't care enough to know the truth anyway.

Slumberjack

Yes, in the western context, the CBC, the BBC, CNN, Fox, and assorted outfits like that perform the same function as loudspeakers attached to telephone poles, through which the empire prompts the population in whichever direction it requires.  The hilarious part is that the stenographers who make themselves useful to the imperium actually believe they're doing journalism.  When you start out in a delusion it becomes difficult to avoid passing delusion on to the mass of already enfeebled minds that the order of things gives preference to.