Jump to navigation
I don't have time to read the link.
Please post a quoted portion of the article.
"Time is Dead", and so is that thread on the CBC, for which I had just prepared a (now dead) posting comparing Sven's offerings with those of Peter Sellers' Chauncy Gardner. Someday, Maysie, you might offer up a rationale for your timing (in this case, aabout 8:30 a.m. on Jan. 2) in deciding to terminate. Thread drift? Yeah, but perhaps you or another PooBah could have intervened and told the bastard to lay off his star spangled innuendo? Maybe next time?
George, you should take your justified complaint to this thread. Maysie is just following babble policy as it has been established for years. But perhaps it's time for a change.
Your link of Jan. 1, is vital to understanding the history of each system:
January 1, 2009 - 1:06pm
For Sven and others who might be reading this thread, here is a good article on the importance and influence of public broadcasting:
Would you care to start another thread with the major arguments for retaining the CBC (as determined by a parliamentary committee in 1932) central to understanding the need today for public broadcasting? And again posting that link in a living thread?
Nothing has changed. Nada!
What say, FM? Have you read the link? I would think you could point to more than a few ways in which CBC digresses from the original format/mandate.
I don't really buy the 'end of journalism' line, George. When they speak of the 'end of journalism' what they seem to be referencing is the end of reliable and informative news coverage by the MSM. That's been dead for years. Which is why, I guess, I so counted on the CBC.
I expected the CBC to provide dispassionate, and in-depth news coverage. I couldn't get the former but I was prepared to settle for the latter. Despite what I want, my better half still insists on listening to CBC radio and so it was today, at noon, the Ceeb was on and ... the noon news? I'd guess they wrapped up the whole world and Canada in about five minutes. Which is to say, it was as shallow as the news break from the local Top 40 station.
But I do believe journalism is alive and well on the Internet. There are many excellent sites and there are professional news gatherers as well as amateur, All of these voices provide a diversity that simply can't be found from the North American MSM includng the CBC. And many offer insights and background to challenge the biases of even crusty old cynics like myself.
I couldn't agree, more, FM. It's frustratingly painful to hear the way in which such shallow analysis is given to important issues and I think that's getting worse on the CBC. There are programs where this isn't the case but they are getting to be fewer in number, in frequency and, in general availability. For example, I think that BC Almanac does quite a good job of focussing on a particular news item and presenting different views on that item, as well as not cutting progressive callers short when they offer another angle -- as compared to Cross Country Check-up.
I also find it ironic that the very network that aired the documentary "Manufacturing Consent" (http://www3.nfb.ca/collection/films/fiche/index.php?id=54943) which articulated and expanded upon my own wonderings and observations, has capitulated to the corporate agenda as presented in that film.
I can still be informed by some CBC programming, even while I'm poring over the profundities proffered on babble. There's the Globe and Mail and the local Record (hey, got two quietly snarky letters in to the editor in last two publishing days, on greed and green things) and then there's the library.
I'm going to work at developing the ability to describe your contemporary human model, FM.
And thanks for posting that link on CBC history, Loretta. If we can change the political climate along with CBCs brass, they'll soon find their nerve again.
Looks like the subject is exhausted.
Movin' on up!