I'm all for changing the bathwater but will defend the CBC because there is no Canadian commercial equivalent and never will be.
I highly recommend the interview with Prof. John Herd Thompson that Unionist linked to. The media in general has been extremely negligent when it comes to reporting on the CWB.
quote: "I don't have a crystal ball but given how little I view/listen to CBC I am willing to take my chances."
And in the true, collectivist spirit, ready to take chances with everyone else's future as well, apparently.
quote: "With the million-channel internet I don't need the CBC anymore for information or entertainment".
CPAc is informative, isn't it. And there's AlJazeera and BBC, all full of thoughts about Canadian governmental matters. And PBS (East and West) gives a more even-handed perspective on America internally...and great BBC drams (BBC is that government-funded UK public bradcasster, underwritten somewhat more substantially than the CBC...but of course, also under attack by a Conservative government, stangely enough. Take a few minutes from TV watching sometime and try to figure out why it's Conservative governments - who get elected on offers of LOWER TAXES - that seem to want to end non-commmercial voices, along with taxes.?!
quote: "I think the CBC is biased towards the government, capital and the establishment, and it is of dubious use to the left "
It is certainly trying to avoid Conservative charges that it is biased toward the left. You're apparently not watching CPAC enough to know that that is happening. And again, probably you are ready to crapshoot as to the future of Canadian media voices, some sort of lone labour stranger riding out of the west to rescue us all from an emasculated commercial media reporting the news vetted by Big Brother.
DO try to connect with Radio One programming. Start this morning. Michael Enright (if we're lucky) on Sunday Edition at 9 a.m. EST. Ideas every weeknight at 9 p.n, EST. Go from there after consulting cbc.ca.
Or perhaps you can suggest some commercial alternative...without those bloody commercials? I watch very little TV outside of news, because of them, the dramatic scenes always fading into dribble-proof panties for old farts.
Of course CBC should be criticized from a left-wing point of view. Andrew Coyne? Kevin O'Leary? Don Cherry? But when we find ourselves advocating the same solution as their friends, you might take a second and double check your math. If you support public broadcasting as such (and perhaps you don't), then it's best to advocate reform before dismantlement.
I think the Conservatives are bluffing on their threat to dismantle the CBC. They are using the threat to push the nominally independent CBC to add more right-wing programming/messaging but when push comes to shove they too can see the value in retaining a government broadcaster. I mean, even the new Libyan government has a broadcaster "Radio Libye", and sure as can be they are hard at work 7 days a week getting out the government's messaging, I heard them the other day in French on 11,600khz shortwave ( http://www.short-wave.info/?station=RADIO%20LIBYE ).
Now we can argue with the right over how independent from government it should be and what functions it serves, but it is playing into the right's narrative to say the CBC is only of value to those on the left. And because so many Canadians value and enjoy the CBC the political backlash to dismantling it will be huge.
Which is to agree that there is broad support for public broadcasting in this country, but to further suggest that threats of dismantlement are not something the left should allow ourselves to be beaten with.
The Conservatives intend to take away 10 per cent of the CBC budget this year, and then next year some more, and so on.
But until we can beat the bastards in the next election, it is rather unseemly to take up their arguments - including lower taxes - while claiming to speak from some convoluted position on "the left," waiting for a stressed union movement to ride to the rescue and somehow create a national broadcaster.
I'm all for changing the bathwater but will defend the CBC because there is no Canadian commercial equivalent and never will be.
Agreed!
I highly recommend the interview with Prof. John Herd Thompson that Unionist linked to. The media in general has been extremely negligent when it comes to reporting on the CWB.
You can find it at the 29 minute mark of the 3rd hour [url=http://www.cbc.ca/thesundayedition/shows/2011/11/13/post/#]here[/url].
Threats of dismantlement are not something the left should allow ourselves to be beaten with.
I am not sure what you mean by this. Not trying to corner you, as I acknowledge we have different opinions, but I am curious.
From what I see, the government threat of rendering the CBC ineffective is very real; it is already in the process of being gutted and co-opted
And I have read enough opinions from some on the left who would love to see it dismantled.
I think this whole focus on news coverage (though it is of prime concern to us) is extremely narrow, and ignores the cultural importance of the CBC in terms of broadcasting in official and numerous Native languages, as well as their mandate to broadcast in parts of the country where no other radio or TV exists, as well as overseas.
That aspect of public broadcasting, as well as its mandate to reflect a wide range of opinion, is something that is being missed, I think.
So on Cross Country Checkup this afternoon they're talking about the global financial crisis, and Rex lets some caller go completely off-topic with an anti-union, anti-arbitration rant, raising the spectre of mom and pop grocery stores (literally) being shut down.
If it had been on-topic, fair enough. But this was a completely different issue. You can bet if it were something he disagreed with he would have shut her down right away.
Grrrrr!! Letter time.
Managed to post the above image from Friends of CBC website:
http://www.friends.ca/fact-sheet/238
It shows that while Harper is no friend of the CBC, he is really not much different than Chretian or Martin. Harper has cut the CBC by 10% since becoming elected. A different government could add that funding back. It seems a case of 'want a better outcome, elect a better government'. But I just don't see the sky falling on the CBC or the institution being dismantled, I see every indication it will survive as a useful public broadcaster. Every G7 country has a public broadcasting service because it is useful and Canada will not be an exception.
The left makes a mistake acting like we are the only people with a stake in public broadcasting in Canada when clearly the CBC serves others' agendas as well (Murphy, O'Leary, Cherry foremost evidence). On that basis we should not hesitate to criticize the CBC when it is warranted.
@ 1springarden
I agree with you completely that the CBC should not be our mouthpiece anymore than anyone else's. I don't think everyone (or even a majority) on the left thinks that. I think most supporters recognize that its mandate is to present a wide range of ideas.
Any of the criticisms I have of the CBC don't stem from them presenting opinions I disagree with, but from instances where programs have an unfair bias, double standard or unprofessionalism.
The O'Leary/Hedges encounter I mentioned above is a perfect example. Kevin O'Leary is not a journalist in any sense of the word. It is not he who should have been censured so much as the producer who thought it was a good idea to put an untrained person in a national news position in the first place.
For that matter, so long as Don Cherry sticks to doing his job I have no problem with him at all. I don't think racist comments and calling down people for being opposed to on-ice violence falls under that job description.
I suppose the only way to fathom this romance with the CBC is to first understand the center Left's chronic approach to politics in general, with its more insistent demands amounting these days to a conversation that doesn't seem to travel much further beyond the front ranks of the riot squad; on those rare occasions when they're not being extensively ignored altogether.
Once we're done with the CBC, we should seriously consider eliminating the taxpayer-funded public school system, which just fills our kids' heads with imperialist propaganda and does whatever the government tells it to do.
And don't get me started on health care - wait forever, lousy service, all for what? Make some specialists rich? Call that progressive?
Privatize everything until we can be sure it's truly controlled by and in the service of the people! Then we'll all have more money to spend on... Um.
That's quite the imagery, SJ (#61).
Sadly, I can't return the compliment.
Once we're done with the CBC, we should seriously consider eliminating the taxpayer-funded public school system, which just fills our kids' heads with imperialist propaganda and does whatever the government tells it to do.
And don't get me started on health care - wait forever, lousy service, all for what? Make some specialists rich? Call that progressive?
Privatize everything until we can be sure it's truly controlled by and in the service of the people! Then we'll all have more money to spend on... Um.
Once upon a time, Canadians looked to Britain for leadership in social welfare. It will be 70 years ago, this Dec. 1, when Sir William Beveridge reported to a coalition wartime British Parliament proposing a financial safety net to ensure "freedom from want" after the war. That has been the goal of social democracy in Canada.
Now we have a bastardized "left" that does not understand even the means by which that state can be maintained in the face of siren calls for lower taxes for the "me" generation. When that song creeps into conversation among self-styled "progressives" you know that history means bugger all, and the sky's the limit for alienated, muddled interpretation.
Clearly, the U.S.spirit of possessive individualism continues its inexorable course hereabouts.Steve knows it's just a case of matter over what passes for minds left by the "Age of Persuasion." (That's another of the many CBC programs with historical background, and demonstrating how minds have been shaped by the "adman"...right up there alongside the "taxman.")
Once we're done with the CBC, we should seriously consider eliminating the taxpayer-funded public school system, which just fills our kids' heads with imperialist propaganda and does whatever the government tells it to do.
And don't get me started on health care - wait forever, lousy service, all for what? Make some specialists rich? Call that progressive?
Privatize everything until we can be sure it's truly controlled by and in the service of the people! Then we'll all have more money to spend on... Um.
No it's not like that at all. Maybe it's more like cutting funds for a G8 summit. Unlike a cut to healthcare or education, nobody gets hurt because the CBC takes a 10% cut across its 4 TV channels and 3 radio channels. Maybe the CBC cuts will take out Rex Murphy, Kevin O'Leary, Evan Solomon, Don Cherry or that redundant business/news TV channel. The CBC is increasingly earning such an equivical response.
I think it's clearly the case that voluntarily subscribing to the steady diet of 24/7 corporate banality in the form of news and informational programming is not enough for some. The nature of this rather peculiar addiction is such that for some users, it apparently warrants being supplemented by the entire population with involuntary contributions at source for more of it, regardless of the individual and societal harm it has repeatedly proven itself capable of. Surely by any stretch, the right in this country cannot be mobilized against the CBC on an ideological level as it pertains to content, aside from a few obscure offerings on radio enjoyed by an equally obscure listening audience. Its main point of contention then must reside in the unnecessary disbursement of public funds to the tune of tens of millions, for a marketing approach they're all too familiar with from their own ideology, and through intimate collaboration in fact with the ceeb across various panels. It's as if some individuals cannot bring themselves to fully understand the treachery of this organization in terms of human lives. As an adjunct to the national security state, it has been performing a role not far removed from that of a public affairs spokesperson at DND, or a White House press secretary.
No doubt about it. As old P.T.Barnum said, there's one born every minute. Back to your picture of history from your "million channel universe":
"From its inception, CBC has been a massive psy-op on the Canadian population, designed to keeps the English and French populace pacified while the wealth of the country gets carried off by our colonial and corporate masters. Or provide the rationalizations and 'embedded' propaganda for whatever military misadventures the Washington (or Whitehall) consensus demands. Can the CBC ever challenge the government? Has it ever challenged the relationship between the establishment and the colony's subjects? The CBC has no more editorial range than the Globe and Mail and we are not taxed for the operation of the Globe and Mail. The best I can say about the CBC is that it is pleasant and sometimes interesting. But it has always been the government's puppet on a string.
If the CBC gets de-funded I have no doubt that other more authentic and useful voices will emerge (eg labour-sponsored media)."
I have the Globe and Mail delivered daily, to try to keep up with the goings on of those "corporate masters." And that newspaper was kept alive on the fortunes of a family that sucked dry a couple of hundred commmunity newspapers, leaving the country vulnerable to the kind of distorted picture that you carry around in your head. You're going to love Pierre Karl Peladeau.
I just think its a rather feeble bargaining position to announce from the outset, that should the left as represented to us in its current populist condition ever gain decision making power, all that would be required to invigorate the CBC toward a more inclusive mandate in terms of lending voice to the wider political spectrum, merely involves changing up a few presenters and a little program re-tweaking here and there.
On the flat face of the last ten years and counting of the CBC's abject sycophancy, such comforting assurances, when observed from a more strategic line of analysis than that of the hand to mouth here and now, appears incapable of presenting any dilemma whatsoever to an institution whose mission and vision put into practical use involves bending over backwards as far as possible, to the strange delight of any old political ideology offering cash payments on a regular basis in return for services rendered. This is a strategy which permits them to get away scott free with what their doing now by simply drawing the curtain on a sickening peepshow of the worse kind, because we're all chipping in whether we find our thing in it or not, while opening up another curtain if the discerning customer is insistent about it, which might very well prove more amenable to certain sensitivities and tastes not previously considered and catered to.
There is not a form of journalism or public good to be salvaged here and put to a better use, but a highly institutionalized and well practiced model of selfish pandering. There is also no alignment here either of the left and right when it comes to positioning over the CBC. The message should be simple enough for everyone involved in the wider debate to understand. Either the public broadcaster takes immediate pains to equally present the diverse political opinion in this country, or a government of the left will include within its first sitting a determination to re-direct the current level of funding to models of journalism that will be only too glad to do so. To my mind this would represent a bargaining position of some strength, which says get it done before it's too late. To begin with of course, one would need to have confidence in one's ability to ever gain power. It's nothing a poker face in lieu couldn't impart with practice.
Pretty shallow opinions from leftists. Dismantle the CBC and leave all broadcasting directly in the hands of the rich owners and rich advertisers. That will help us how? Other than allegedly reducing our tax burden, a noble objective for the masses who don't earn enough to pay much in tax?
And thinking that something will come along to "fill the gap" is pretty optimistic. We're talking about TV, radio, and internet here. Wanna guess at the startup costs?
Interested in some truly profound changes? How about starting a movement to: 1) ban all commercial advertising in broadcast media. 2) create a new publicly owned and run TV-telephone-internet provider, to compete with the private ones - heavily subsidized of course - and delivering its services free of charge up to some reasonably determined level of usage. Then watch the 1% scream.
Would you support those measures?
The federal government's attempt to get access to CBC financial records may be illegal, and ultimately destined to fail:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2011/11/14/pol-cp-cbc-info.html
and the bar association agrees it is a bad move:
http://www.thestar.com/news/article/1082808
Yup, that sure looks to me like abject sycophancy and pandering.
It's pretty shallow, and naive to be honest about it, for leftists to say to the CBC that despite everything, we'll make you treat us more fairly as soon as we get the chance.....just you wait and see. A policy statement that offers the means to provide coast to coast opportunities for non-corporate opinions to be heard in public, doesn't sound at all like placing everyone into the hands of the rich ownership class. They've been placed there already with the assistance of the current model of public broadcasting.
It's pretty shallow, and naive to be honest about it, for leftists to say to the CBC that despite everything, we'll make you treat us more fairly as soon as we get the chance.....just you wait and see.
That's a funny, oversimplified and inaccurate way to spin it. I sure don't see the CBC as one thing.
I can think of individual reporters, commentators and producers on specific programs who do things which are unfair or unprofessional. And when we talk about how right-wing the CBC is it is always the same four or five names which are trotted out as an example.
But the fact remains that those journalists who are doing their job still constitute the most vocal opposition we have to government, and there is no other broadcaster which gives as much of an open forum to the general public (of all political persuasions) as the CBC.
I see it more as electing a government which respects a proper arms-length approach rather than one which attempts to undermine, subvert and block.
That innovation will come from within the broadcaster itself, if it is left alone.
It is the CRTC's job to see that broadcasters fulfill their mandate - not the government.
The CBC has received about $1.1 billion each year (constant 2011 dollars) for the past 15 years during the Chretian-Martin-Harper governments. With that money CBC presently runs 4 TV channels, 4 radio channels (includes Radio Canada shortwave) and a comprehensive internet website.
If there is to be renewal at CBC then it needs a government to champion it with either new ideas, money or both. Want a better outcome, elect a better government. Otherwise expect the same billion dollars to deliver the same public broadcasting, with little innovation. As the public broadcaster, the CBC is a political football that gets subjected to the inclinations of the government in power. It's tough to have high expectations for such an arrangement.
The federal government's attempt to get access to CBC financial records may be illegal, and ultimately destined to fail:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2011/11/14/pol-cp-cbc-info.html
and the bar association agrees it is a bad move:
http://www.thestar.com/news/article/1082808
Yup, that sure looks to me like abject sycophancy and pandering.
Thanks for the links, 6079. The law really means boo-all to this government. Surprise !
Sj :"It's pretty shallow, and naive to be honest about it, for leftists to say to the CBC that despite everything, we'll make you treat us more fairly as soon as we get the chance.....just you wait and see."
You have it ass backwards, and demonstrate that you do not understand the news-gatherer's first need...freedom to print what one discovers.
A New Democratic government would be expected to NOT use the power of the purse to force programming decisions on an executive...and the executive would not reflect its choosing by bean counters.
Ever since the hoi-polloi was brought happily into the investment game a third of a century back - playing the market became the sport of little apples as well as the big ones - and despite the propensity of markets to shake the little apples from the tree from time to time, the dream of THe Wealthy Barber was institutionalized. It all became a part of dinner-time news, with regular reports on the market's rise and fall. Lang and O'Leary dramatize what's been accumulating in that period as the value of "nest eggs" in millions of homes are weighed and economic policies (their effect on the eggs) weighed in turn.
If you do not understand that process, followed by millions of Canadians, you're a hermit, or one of those who find it easier to blame the messenger rather than deal with the realities of late capitalist Canada.
I buy a calendar each year from Friends of Canadian Broadcasting to help it explain the real world of broadcasting in a country governed by manipulators involved in shutting down democratic institutions - in Parliamentary committees and in broadcasting. And in the monthly lies disseminated through mailings. And perhaps rather than calling for the selloff of Canada Post for conveying those lying missives from Conservative members, the light-headed will understand the NDP's filibustered defence of the postal workers?
I agree 6079, if the CBC is left alone by government to do public broadcasting it would be fine. There has been a lot of political interference via selection of management at the CBC. I can appreciate your positive view of what public broadcassting can be, and it is fair to recognize what we have. Perhaps my expactations have been beaten down since the CBC had its resources cut by 33% in 1994-95.
You have it ass backwards, and demonstrate that you do not understand the news-gatherer's first need...freedom to print what one discovers. A New Democratic government would be expected to NOT use the power of the purse to force programming decisions on an executive...and the executive would not reflect its choosing by bean counters.
You're being overly inventive here. We're not discussing a different set of talking points depending on who is in power, but a capstone standard operating process that ensures multiple opinions are able to enjoy equal footing in return for continued funding from the multiple opinions there are to be found in society..or at least any footing at all. And certainly, I'd have to agree that a New Democratic government would not be in any position to begin with if it were to enforce a non-corporate apologist agenda upon the public broadcaster.
....And in the monthly lies disseminated through mailings. And perhaps rather than calling for the selloff of Canada Post for conveying those lying missives from Conservative members, the light-headed will understand the NDP's filibustered defence of the postal workers?
After ten years of cheerleading on Afghanistan, Libya, and with Iran never far below the surface of current plans, it's true that I frankly do not understand how some people can still locate any value in this conglomerate. It's like saying poor Colin Powell wasn't so bad after all, because the Bush administration made him go out there on stage at the UN Security Council peddling cartoon drawings and funny pictures.
And....does anyone know how to stay on topic anymore, in general conformity with a thread title? Hello...it's called CBC 'bashing?'
Looks more like a Tea Party at times. :)
And....does anyone know how to stay on topic anymore, in general conformity with a thread title? Hello...it's called CBC 'bashing?'
I suppose it all depends on whether you are onside with the National Citizens Coalition and the Free Thinkers' Festival.
But sure... Do let us get back to the original thread topic. Their panel discussion was about what they saw as the CBC's bias against Israel and against conservatives.
I suppose it all depends on whether you are onside with the National Citizens Coalition and the Free Thinkers' Festival.
I will have to assume that you'll be relieved to know it doesn't depend on anything of the sort. In a similar vein, I'll offer that we can at least be thankful in this instance, that the prospects for this conversation being permitted to continue as an open critique from a leftist perspective, thus far hasn't hinged upon anyone's mistaken, or purposeful as the case may be, interpretation of what is actually transpiring here, or as to where it originates from.
Well criticism can certainly come from different perspectives, but the original topic was clearly about accusations by the right wing that the CBC is biased against them, and specifically about this little festival which is a vehicle for it.
So among other things, that is evidence that not everyone thinks our public broadcaster is being run out of the PMO.
And sorry, but I haven't a clue what your second sentence means. If you are trying to say something, perhaps you should just say it.
Well I must say this is an interesting discussion. But has anyone here directly dealt with the CBC or its staffers? Or its arrogance?
Here's what I think: this is an over-staffed Crown corporation that relies on romantic notions of a national unifying force for the people. Sure we have some very extreme examples of right wing infiltration in the form of the Cherry/O Leary gang, but that's limited to editorializing and not news content.
The real elephant in the room is this: why is the CBC funded to the tune of $1.1B annually? What does it accomplish for those dollars and can the average taxpayer ask questions of the CBC without being ignored? I'm not talking about trojans like that other right wing network doing access to info stuff or the taxpayer federation dolts.
I like CBC radio but the TV side is not worth the money and anyone who has seen what they do knows that radio is cheaper than television. Is it wrong to ask what a videographer, producer or a vice president at the CBC makes? It's not the biggest secret in this world folks. Is it wrong to ask for the CBC to stop acting like what Air Canada used to be as an arrogant crown corp. and start acting like a modern broadcaster?
Well I must say this is an interesting discussion. But has anyone here directly dealt with the CBC or its staffers? Or its arrogance?
Yes, on numerous occasions, and in a number of capacities.
Never worked for them myself, but I know and have known a number of people on the French and English side, TV and Radio. and in technical and marketing.
Its arrogance? I have no idea where to even begin with that.
Ok fair enough. Your experience may have been different from mine. So during these capacities, were you behind the camera or in front? What I am saying is that you feel this thing about arrogance is not valid for a Joe Average guy like me? I have never worked for them either. I just think they should get out of my way and stop pretending they're doing me a favour. What does this corporation want to do with itself? When will it be accountable to me? I don't know why three to four CBC staffers show up for one of me at any news event. And yes I do work for another media outlet but I am not militant about it.
No I have never worked in TV. When I was in the trade, I was in print.
I have been interviewed on TV in studio (once) and on radio.
I don't doubt you, but I didn't notice substantially bigger CBC crews than from other media at anything I covered, or events I have attended since.
And I don't question your experience, but I don't share it.
Well, anyway I'm not making this about what the CBC does on the front lines. But I guess this is where CBC bashing starts, aside from the usual right wing nonsense. A guy like me, who used to deal with them at a CBC affiliate station has to watch them try to hijack my own fibre optic line until I call them on it. I don't feel a lot of sympathy. This goes back to where our tax dollars go.
Hey, that little festival of theirs got some press:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/arts/television/john-doyle/why-every...
Oh this is freaking rich:
The Conservative government has repeatedly been given a failing grade by the Information Commissioner for its own unwillingness to release documents requested under access laws. But Mr. Del Mastro had threatened that [b]refusal on the part of the CBC to release the documents could put the corporation in contempt of Parliament[/b].
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/cbc-reluctantly-turns-over-...
Quote: "No Sj, the majority of their stuff, like the majority of all TV, is for the great "oppressed", to borrow a term from this thread. Never watch the majority of the offerings. But boy do they ever manage to uncover some great stuff that makes the Cons squirm eh? Like that female RCMP officer (corporal) who had to go on leave of absence after 16 years of exposure to lecherous male cops? She took it to the CBC. Wonder why. And they DO try harder to produce "made in Canada" than the others."
That officer has now been joined by more than 40 female officers complaining of sexual harassment. Strange how they would all run to a government organ to express their outrage, seek justice.
Yes, and its latest headline, New top Mountie Paulson vows accountability, proud and privileged is he don't you know, informs us that the wheels of justice are churning as we speak. Give it a read if your stomach can withstand it. It's not all bad news though. The stage production enjoys the full support of the Leader of the Opposition.
Yes, ain't the new Commish a beaut, military background and all?
And obviously the CBC should not have consented to carry the complainants' views to the public. Clearly, Turmel should have expressed outrage at the commissioner's reassurances.
Why indeed would they pass on an opportunity to scrub something down in such a competitive, cutthroat atmosphere as the laundry business? The best people are now ironing things out as we speak, with the quality control folks of the NDP on standby to inspect the tidy bundle for wrinkles. Everything is as it should be Truman Burbank.
@ SJ #90
The CBC National News led that story this morning with the point that the commission is flawed, because it cuts off incidents before 2005, including the case of the officer who complained in the first place.
Too limited, is one of the terms used in the piece.
The officer was told (CBC reported) that the the commission may accomplish good things, but that it was "probably too late for her".
Sorry to disappoint, but some people are doing their jobs.
Yes Gaian I too watched them break the latest RCMP scandal and that's because the people who came forward had more confidence in the CBC than the other networks. I think that is absolutely the correct thing for these women to do and the CBC can certainly take a bow for breaking an important issue that was always there.
Has the CBC being doing some great work recently? Very much so! Some great stories and ideas and interesting angles with unique formats. But why did it take this long for them to do it?
They were really a moribund bureaucracy with declining ratings and I don't know if they'll be able to get out of the ratings hole they're in now. But what motivated CBC brass to suddenly get all this massive firepower off its collective backside and do more interesting and engaging stories and get more production out of their producers and reporters? For a billion plus dollars annually I expect great journalism and excellent technical quality. They sure weren't doing that in the recent past and there are times they are no better than anybody else.
The explanation for changes:
February 4, 2011
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."
I agree that they're getting it from the top now. But for years and years front line staff, and middle managers have been just as guilty of being unproductive. And they have continuously invoked the canard of being a national broadcaster that looks out for Jane and Jean Marie Canadien. Hiding behind the sacred cow metaphor only gets you so far in my opinion.
If you're not doing what regular Canadians want you can't very well dictate to those same people that you know what's good for the great unwashed, and they should pay no matter what. If the CBC had been doing what people wanted to watch, they would not be dealing with these relentless and rapacious attacks from the right wing.
The CBC morphed into something other than what its original purpose was. When that happens, people vote by changing the channel and take their eyeballs somewhere else.
Yes, clearly we should let the entertainment tastes of the "regular Canadian" determine content quality, and the profit motive set the TV and radio stage. Chase after that emporium of taste, America. And let people with a chip on their shoulder be the final arbiter.
As the man said: "To those people, it doesn't matter that the CBC gets a pittance compared with the support other countries offer to their public broadcasters."
As me old mom used to say, "it takes all kinds."
How can you have a breaking news story that is at least 5 years old. The CBC has not pursued this issue but they will take ripe fruit handed to them. As a society we wrongly give sexual harassment of women a very low priority. The years of silence on this ongoing problem in between BREAKING NEWS stories is hardly ground brealking jounalism.
In an affidavit filed by Const. Victoria Cliffe, a decorated officer, she reveals that not only had she been enlisted by a superior for unauthorized undercover work, but that, in the end, it was really all about him getting her into bed.
The superior officer requested she send him photographs of her dressed in biker gear to see if she was suitable for the undercover role.
Then, while on the road, she soon realized the assignment was more about drinking beer than watching targets.
At the end of the night, they went back to their hotel, where her superior informed her he had not booked a room for her, but said she could sleep on the couch in his room.
Only there was no couch, and after falling asleep on opposite sides of the bed, the constable awoke to find her sergeant sexually assaulting her.
"I was deeply traumatized by the assault, but I believed that if I complained of it my career with the RCMP would be over."
In fact, she never gave a statement until she was ordered to give one in relation to another female colleague who had also accused the superior of sexual assault.
"Nothing prepared me for how devastating the impact of coming forward has been on my career," she wrote.
The decorated constable says the RCMP operates as an "old boys' club and does not protect or support individuals who break rank or complain about mistreatment within the force."
In that case, the superior officer lost a day's pay, and her career has never been the same.
"I was ostracized by other members of the RCMP, was subjected to unwanted sexual comments and touching by other members of the RCMP, and I became the subject of completely groundless allegations of professional misconduct ... I have also been forced to transfer several times since providing my statement because of workplace harassment and intimidation."
Cliffe, like other Mounties who felt the internal complaints system failed them, launched civil action. She was one of four women who filed a civil suit.
The suit was settled in 2004.
http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=0d04add3-3ebf-4...
Yes, clearly we should let the entertainment tastes of the "regular Canadian" determine content quality, and the profit motive set the TV and radio stage. Chase after that emporium of taste, America. And let people with a chip on their shoulder be the final arbiter. As the man said: "To those people, it doesn't matter that the CBC gets a pittance compared with the support other countries offer to their public broadcasters." As me old mom used to say, "it takes all kinds."
You are mistaking low brow entertainment that other private broadcasters put on with solid reporting. You can certainly have an opinion about the quality of what the other networks are putting on, but by the same token, that is what I am criticizing about the CBC. I don't care what the CBC puts on as entertainment. I am more interested in its news side which soaks up a lot of dollars.
And since when did the common person have a chip on their shoulder for criticizing the CBC. Sounds like an elitist almost Communist perspective. We know what's good for you because you clearly don't. Pravda also kniew what was good for the citizen too.
quote: "And since when did the common person have a chip on their shoulder for criticizing the CBC.Sounds like an elitist almost Communist perspective. We know what's good for you because you clearly don't. Pravda also kniew what was good for the citizen too."
And here you know you are free(thinking) because you are free to shop till you drop, vote the "lower taxes" ticket forever, and know that no journal/broadcaster is going to do a Suzuki while selling your favourite vehicle/vacation etc. Madison Ave. has no control over your mind or Mainstreet's or your favourite Conservative politician's. And your progeny can sink or swim.
As to the chip on the shoulder, that's your bailiwick,and NS's,who still avoids the fact that more than three dozen female RCMP officers chose in the past month to take their stories to the CBC, rather than his favourite right-wing broadcaster.
Those wishing to be informed beyond newscasts can watch Fifth Estate, or listen to White Coat Black Art, or the Age of Persuasion, or Quirks and Quarks, or those connecting english and french-speaking Canada...the endless variety of thought-provoking programs. For thoughtful people not on a personal, whining, alienated crusade.
