# CBC to study whether its news is biased



## screature (May 14, 2007)

CBC to study whether its news is biased



> The CBC has commissioned a study to determine whether its news is biased, the president of the public broadcaster told the Senate finance committee this week.





> CBC refused to comment on the study’s methodology Thursday.


How typical. 

A funny but all too true editorial on the situation: The CBC's left-wing bias



> So you've got the CBC investigating the CBC about the CBC's own fairness. But the CBC won't or can't demonstrate that the bias investigation isn't biased.
> 
> So maybe we need a bias study of the bias study.
> 
> ...





> 6. The CBC, unlike other media, operates with impunity when it comes to bias. Other media across the world are dying off like dinosaurs. The nominal reason for that is lack of ad revenues, but ad revenues follow eyeballs -- just ask Rupert Murdoch, owner of the biggest newspaper in America (The Wall Street Journal) and the biggest cable news channel in America (Fox News). He doesn't get a billion dollars a year from the government -- but he doesn't need to, since he can attract readers and viewers on his own.
> 
> Not the CBC: they can continue to be a hard-left group of activists, participating in a culture war against the West, the North, conservatives, rural Canadians, Christians, etc., etc., and be immune from the desertion of viewers that would be the market's punishment if a private broadcaster conducted itself in the same way.
> 
> ...


----------



## bsenka (Jan 27, 2009)

CBC. Fox News for lefties.


----------



## chasMac (Jul 29, 2008)

bsenka said:


> CBC. Fox News for lefties.


Point here though, is you're not subsidising Fox News.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I'm sure the review panel was chosen at random from a pool of left-wing experts.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)




----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Let's see on the National (most politically responsive CBC program) - Rex Murphy writes for the National Post. Allan Gregg is the pollster for Preston Manning. Are those people/organizations left-wing? What do people expect the CBC to do - take on Anne Coulter in place of Pastor Mansbridge?

The CBC gets criticised by the left and right for being biased. Probably not doing such a bad job.


----------



## chasMac (Jul 29, 2008)

CBC's ombudsman implored the network to reflect more diverse opinions (read: rightish) following the Heather Mallick affair. Who knows, maybe this study will prove they have followed through.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

used to be jwoodget said:


> Let's see on the National (most politically responsive CBC program) - Rex Murphy writes for the National Post. Allan Gregg is the pollster for Preston Manning. Are those people/organizations left-wing? What do people expect the CBC to do - take on Anne Coulter in place of Pastor Mansbridge?
> 
> The CBC gets criticised by the left and right for being biased. Probably not doing such a bad job.


Are you trying to suggest that The National Post is Rex's main gig? Hardly. 

Also Allan Gregg has had past affiliations with Brian Mulroney and the defunct PC party, not Preston Manning. He hasn't been a pollster for years.

Wow 2 out of how many dozens of reporters and commentators have demonstrable right leaning affiliations... you're right, that is very balanced.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Those are two of the frequent contributors who are allowed to express their opinion. CBC did a pretty good job on Adscam and has hardly fallen over Ignatieff. Whoever is in government should feel the most heat.

Allan Gregg (who I think is worth listening to - along with Andrew Coyne): Allan Gregg - Wikipedia


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

used to be jwoodget said:


> Let's see on the National (most politically responsive CBC program) - Rex Murphy writes for the National Post. Allan Gregg is the pollster for Preston Manning. Are those people/organizations left-wing? What do people expect the CBC to do - take on Anne Coulter in place of Pastor Mansbridge?
> 
> The CBC gets criticised by the left and right for being biased. Probably not doing such a bad job.


CBC's "At Issue" weekly feature, with Allan Gregg, Chantal Hébert and Andrew Coyne, is one of the best things about CBC News. Of course, Rex Murphy is one of the smartest persons on TV news, and not just because he id from NL. Last night, his commentary was a classic RM.

CBC News - The National - Rex Murphy - Show Me The Money


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

used to be jwoodget said:


> Whoever is in government should feel the most heat.


You would think wouldn't you... but I remember all too well the Chretien years when Manning was in opposition and the CBC was falling all over itself to discredit him and his policies (at least they had some, unlike the current opposition) for one thing or another, mostly his manner of speaking and looks (like Chretien was such a looker). 

Sorry you can say whatever you like but I have seen the CBC's bias in evidence far too many times to believe that they present a balanced political view.

Although I will grant you that At Issue and the "three musketeers" are a good panel. The best thing CBC has to offer on the political front.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

▲ Agreed. I've seen a belly full of bias over my time. I refuse to even watch it anymore.


----------



## bsenka (Jan 27, 2009)

used to be jwoodget said:


> Let's see on the National (most politically responsive CBC program) - Rex Murphy writes for the National Post. Allan Gregg is the pollster for Preston Manning. Are those people/organizations left-wing? What do people expect the CBC to do - take on Anne Coulter in place of Pastor Mansbridge?
> .


So a half hour a week on one of their four networks constitutes balance to you?


----------



## Rps (May 2, 2009)

Bias is in the eyes of the beholder. If Fox ran HNIC it would start with a military jet fly past, with the Canadian flag waving in the background to the tune of Maple Leaf Forever with our soldiers, clean cut and in Bible School, playing darts with pictures of FLQ members wearing hockey helmets against the back drop of ...... well you get the idea. When you look at bias it is a good idea to look at the whole spectrum of their broadcast. Fox is biased and is unabashed about it. CBC, not so sure ..... as I say, bias is often in the eyes and ears of the beholder.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Rps said:


> Bias is in the eyes of the beholder. If Fox ran HNIC it would start with a military jet fly past, with the Canadian flag waving in the background to the tune of Maple Leaf Forever with our soldiers, clean cut and in Bible School, playing darts with pictures of FLQ members wearing hockey helmets against the back drop of ...... well you get the idea. When you look at bias it is a good idea to look at the whole spectrum of their broadcast. Fox is biased and is unabashed about it. CBC, not so sure ..... as I say, bias is often in the eyes and ears of the beholder.


That is one view. But a careful study of what the CBC DOES NOT broadcast is a far better indicator of their obvious bias.

IE: If they don't like it or don't support it, it ain't gonna be there.


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

Bias is just another way of saying "not what I think."

"Reality has a well-known liberal bias" - Stephen Colbert


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Ottawaman said:


> Bias is just another way of saying "not what I think."
> 
> "Reality has a well-known liberal bias" - Stephen Colbert


I would agree that failure ha a demostrable liberal bias.


----------



## bsenka (Jan 27, 2009)

Rps said:


> Bias is in the eyes of the beholder. If Fox ran HNIC it would start with a military jet fly past, with the Canadian flag waving in the background to the tune of Maple Leaf Forever with our soldiers, clean cut and in Bible School, playing darts with pictures of FLQ members wearing hockey helmets against the back drop of ...... well you get the idea. When you look at bias it is a good idea to look at the whole spectrum of their broadcast. Fox is biased and is unabashed about it. CBC, not so sure ..... as I say, bias is often in the eyes and ears of the beholder.


CBC's left-wing bias is significantly more extreme than Fox's right wing bias.


----------



## Rps (May 2, 2009)

So here is a question for you: Is Global and CTV unbiased? 
SINC there was a time with the Toronto Sun [ can't speak for all Sun papers ] that it had an extremely conservative bent disguised as Liberal. So the Sun chain was never biased .... this isn't a slam, it's just that we tend to see bias through our own lens. Many issues in this country fail to secure "grey-area" views. I would look at all of the broadcasting for CBC before i would categorically state they are bias .... I would agree, strongly I might add, the some journalists are extremely biased .... but isn't that why you watch them? I don't entirely agree with " it's what they don't broadcast", I can say that about every TV and radio station and, dare I say it, newspaper. What I don't see the CBC doing is "creating" news .... which I truly believe Fox does .....


----------



## bsenka (Jan 27, 2009)

CTV is definitely biased towards the Liberal Party specifically, but not so much in favour of left-wing ideals. Global is mostly neutral. The Sun papers are definitely right-wing biased.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Rps said:


> So here is a question for you: Is Global and CTV unbiased?


Bias in privately-owned media is acceptable and to be judged on the open market. Bias in a publicly-funded news outlet? Uh-uh.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Rps said:


> What I don't see the CBC doing is "creating" news .... which I truly believe Fox does .....


I have witnessed it with my very own eyes, thus my firm belief that they are both biased and create some news they want broadcast.

As to the question are other newspapers or other TV networks biased? Of course they are, BUT they are not owned and financed by the Canadian taxpayer. They bought the right to their bias with their independence from the government and the people.

The CBC should be totally unbiased or give up their funding and go it alone.


----------



## hayesk (Mar 5, 2000)

bsenka said:


> CBC's left-wing bias is significantly more extreme than Fox's right wing bias.


If you are left-leaning, Fox is more biased than CBC.
If you are right-leaning, CBC is more biased than Fox.

Sorry, that's just the way it is. We're all blinded by our own political bias, and that includes judging whether another party is biased.

So the question is, is there a news organization that left and right can agree isn't biased? I doubt it.


----------



## hayesk (Mar 5, 2000)

Macfury said:


> Bias in privately-owned media is acceptable and to be judged on the open market. Bias in a publicly-funded news outlet? Uh-uh.


I disagree that it's acceptable for private organization, unless they admit it. It's not acceptable for Fox to claim they are "Fair and Balanced" because it's clear they are simply lying. Lying is not what I look for in my news. I don't care if their editorials are biased, but I do care that the news itself is biased.

Do journalists get training in ethics any more? I would certainly hope they do. Their job is to bring me the news - I want the information, not the analysis. If I want analysis, I'll form it myself or get it through an editorial.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Rps said:


> Bias is in the eyes of the beholder. If Fox ran HNIC it would start with a military jet fly past, with the Canadian flag waving in the background to the tune of Maple Leaf Forever with our soldiers, clean cut and in Bible School, playing darts with pictures of FLQ members wearing hockey helmets against the back drop of ...... well you get the idea. When you look at bias it is a good idea to look at the whole spectrum of their broadcast. Fox is biased and is unabashed about it. CBC, not so sure ..... as I say, bias is often in the eyes and ears of the beholder.


True to an extent. Bias, I would suggest, is based on the *predominance* of the inclination. To me the CBC's predominant inclination is obvious (and has been for years and years) and there for all those to see who are not partisan one way or the other.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Rps said:


> S*o here is a question for you: Is Global and CTV unbiased?
> SINC there was a time with the Toronto Sun [ can't speak for all Sun papers ] that it had an extremely conservative bent disguised as Liberal. So the Sun chain was never biased *.... this isn't a slam, it's just that we tend to see bias through our own lens. Many issues in this country fail to secure "grey-area" views. I would look at all of the broadcasting for CBC before i would categorically state they are bias .... I would agree, strongly I might add, the some journalists are extremely biased .... but isn't that why you watch them? I don't entirely agree with " it's what they don't broadcast", I can say that about every TV and radio station and, dare I say it, newspaper. What I don't see the CBC doing is "creating" news .... which I truly believe Fox does .....


But this isn't relevant. When you buy or watch something from a private provider you "pay" for it because you support it through your viewer/readership. With the CBC we all pay for it and consequently it should strive as much as possible to be politically balanced.


----------



## chasMac (Jul 29, 2008)

In your first post you state that charges of bias directed at news outlets are a by-product of one's political leanings:



hayesk said:


> We're all blinded by our own political bias, and that includes judging whether another party is biased.


Yet in your next post you state outright that Fox _is_ biased:



hayesk said:


> It's not acceptable for Fox to claim they are "Fair and Balanced" because it's clear they are simply lying. Lying is not what I look for in my news. I don't care if their editorials are biased, but I do care that the news itself is biased.


Is Fox a special case? Or are you 'blinded' by your own political bias? I'd say your original assertion carries a little more weight, as Fox news undoubtedly is considered Fair and Balanced in the minds of its audience; likewise the CBC to its audience; no matter that either may be spreading malicioius lies in the eyes of their opponents. 

The concern over whence funding is derived still stands.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

hayesk said:


> I disagree that it's acceptable for private organization, unless they admit it. It's not acceptable for Fox to claim they are "Fair and Balanced" because it's clear they are simply lying. Lying is not what I look for in my news. I don't care if their editorials are biased, but I do care that the news itself is biased.
> 
> Do journalists get training in ethics any more? I would certainly hope they do. Their job is to bring me the news - I want the information, not the analysis. If I want analysis, I'll form it myself or get it through an editorial.


I don't agree. "Admitting it" would be merely stating the obvious. If you say bias is subjective then so is Fair and Balanced. To the ultra right Fox probably is Fair and Balanced. It is also acceptable because the viewer/reader only supports it through their viewer/readership. With the CBC we have no choice, they are supported regardless.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

chasMac said:


> In your first post you state that charges of bias directed at news outlets are a by-product of one's political leanings:...


chasMac please cite the source of your quotes... it looks like I said those things and I never did... please and thanks.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

bsenka said:


> So a half hour a week on one of their four networks constitutes balance to you?


Nope, but that's the most opinionated 30 mins of the week. Unless you are accusing the weather lady of being a closet left-winger (let me guess....). It's interesting how people who complain about bias seem so unaware of their own blinkers. 

Yes Dr.G. Rex was on top form last night. What, exactly, do the MPs (of all three parties) have to hide in their expenses?


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

used to be jwoodget said:


> Nope, but that's the most opinionated 30 mins of the week. Unless you are accusing the weather lady of being a closet left-winger (let me guess....). It's interesting how people who complain about bias seem so unaware of their own blinkers.
> 
> Yes Dr.G. Rex was on top form last night. What, exactly, do the MPs (of all three parties) have to hide in their expenses?


Agreed, Jim. I have met him a few times in person here in St.John's, and he is the same over a cup of coffee as he is on Thursday night or on Cross Country Checkup on Sunday. 

Still, I feel that my tax dollars are being well spent when it comes to the CBC.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Dr.G. said:


> Still, I feel that my tax dollars are being well spent when it comes to the CBC.


But this is easy to say if you enjoy it.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

i hope they don't fire Don Cherry for cheering for the Leafs...

p.s. - comparing the CBC to Fox news is like comparing a bunsen burner to the sun.


----------



## chasMac (Jul 29, 2008)

i-rui said:


> i hope they don't fire Don Cherry for cheering for the Leafs...
> 
> p.s. - comparing the CBC to Fox news is like comparing a bunsen burner to the sun.


Agreed. As bsenka said, CBC's bias is far more extreme than Fox's.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Macfury said:


> But this is easy to say if you enjoy it.


True, it is quality, especially the news and current affairs shows, be they on TV or radio.

Now, my tax dollars being spent on the Senate or the GG's office ........... well, that is another matter for another thread.

Paix, mon ami.


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

i-rui said:


> i hope they don't fire Don Cherry for cheering for the Leafs...
> 
> p.s. - comparing the CBC to Fox news is like comparing a bunsen burner to the sun.


Yes, thank you.

Smearing the CBC will not hide the sins of the CPC.


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

bsenka said:


> CBC. Fox News for lefties.


No way man. Fox News makes most of the news up. CBC is certainly more left leaning than CTV, for example. CityTV is the NDPs best buddy.

Calling CBC the lefty Fox News is utter nonsense. Fox News communicates ignorance, hate, division and often violence.


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

chasMac said:


> Agreed. As bsenka said, CBC's bias is far more extreme than Fox's.


You're thick. I have to say it.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Adrian. said:


> You're thick. I have to say it.


Not half as thick as anyone who thinks the CBC is fair and balanced.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Darn, I always thought journalism and news was always objective and bias free.

We can always blame the jews, after all they control the media.


----------



## chasMac (Jul 29, 2008)

Adrian. said:


> You're thick. I have to say it.


I might say you are a pompous twit who feigns cleverness by posting college reading lists.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

chasMac said:


> I might say you are a pompous twit who feigns cleverness by posting college reading lists.


Oh yeah! Too much edumacation can bite ya.


----------



## bsenka (Jan 27, 2009)

Adrian. said:


> Fox News makes most of the news up.


CBC is far worse for that very thing.


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

bsenka said:


> CBC is far worse for that very thing.


Bull.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

I am going to side-step this whole slovenly mess of opinions and offer one of my own:

We tend to get the kinds of media we deserve.

[ducks, runs]


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Max said:


> I am going to side-step this whole slovenly mess of opinions and offer one of my own:
> 
> We tend to get the kinds of media we deserve.
> 
> [ducks, runs]


Max, that is actually a true statement. Personally, I strive for quality, and watch CBC, PBS, CNN and BBC news. One gets a varied perspective and far closer to what is really out there in the real world. 

Paix, mon ami.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

chasMac said:


> I might say you are a pompous twit who feigns cleverness by posting college reading lists.


Let's not overstate this. The word _feigns_ implies a certain degree of success


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Max said:


> I am going to side-step this whole slovenly mess of opinions and offer one of my own:
> 
> We tend to get the kinds of media we deserve.
> 
> [ducks, runs]


Most of us can't afford the type of media we deserve, because our own views represent too small a slice of the news pie. Instead we have to sit on a seat carved out for the average broad buttocks and watch what pours forth from the screen, with only a little of it meaningful to us.


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

chasMac said:


> Point here though, is you're not subsidising Fox News.


Oh, but you are. If you subscribe to cable or satellite TV, part of your bill goes to Faux whether you watch it or not. Rented a 20th Century Fox movie? Guess what. Watch National Geographic? Or the Speed Channel? American Idol?

How about Gamespy.com? Hulu? Myspace? Ever visit any of them?

Bought a HarperCollins book lately? Read US financial news like the WSJ or Barron's or Dow Jones?

All these other enterprises subsidize Faux Noise. Murdoch, whether you agree with his political views or not, is about controlling the message. Stories printed in the WSJ or New York Post (et al) get cited as sources for news on Faux.

Indeed, I'd wager the average Canadian is paying MORE to support Murdoch's self-fulfilling "news" ecosystem than the $29/year (per capita) they pay for the CBC.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

chas_m said:


> Indeed, I'd wager the average Canadian is paying MORE to support Murdoch's self-fulfilling "news" ecosystem than the $29/year (per capita) they pay for the CBC.


You have missed the entire point. All that you describe is subscription by choice.

The CBC is not only compulsory by taxation, it belongs to the state and your comparisons in that regard are totally out to lunch and irrelevant.

As a state owned and funded institution it should serve EVERY Canadian, not simply the left wing.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

SINC said:


> You have missed the entire point. All that you describe is subscription by choice.
> 
> The CBC is not only compulsory by taxation, it belongs to the state and your comparisons in that regard are totally out to lunch and irrelevant.
> 
> As a state owned and funded institution it should serve EVERY Canadian, not simply the left wing.


From what I understand of chas_m's post, he hasn't missed the point at all. 

You 'subscribe by choice' to other services and still contribute to Fox whether you like it or not. I'd say that draws a close parallel to CBC and taxation, non? In both cases, you are obligated to pay for something you either don't agree with or don't want.

We should lump all the CBC threads together and see if they are larger than The Shang. Betcha it's close.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

You can cancel any specialty channel he refers to that you wish. Try that with CBC.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

The original comment was about subsidizing. How many people are going to opt out of so many things simply to cut off Fox.

Like I said, it draws a close parallel.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

And like I said, it doesn't.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

SINC said:


> And like I said, it doesn't.


:lmao:

Too funny SINC. Get the last word in. Come on, I dares ya!


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

chas_m said:


> Indeed, I'd wager the average Canadian is paying MORE to support Murdoch's self-fulfilling "news" ecosystem than the $29/year (per capita) they pay for the CBC.


That's all we 'pay' for the CBC? What a great deal! 

I'd pay 10 x that for CBC radio alone.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

mrjimmy said:


> That's all we 'pay' for the CBC? What a great deal!
> 
> I'd pay 10 x that for CBC radio alone.


Agreed. I have to admit that I listen to far more CBC Radio One and Two than I watch CBC on TV, but this is because I don't really watch much TV. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Dr.G. said:


> Agreed. I have to admit that I listen to far more CBC Radio One and Two than I watch CBC on TV, but this is because I don't really watch much TV. Paix, mon ami.


I'm the same Dr.G., although I do tune in to The National and New Morning fairly regularly. Only for a few minutes at a time though.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

mrjimmy said:


> I'm the same Dr.G., although I do tune in to The National and New Morning fairly regularly. Only for a few minutes at a time though.


My wife and I watch The National seven days a week, and I go on and off during the week to watch other of the fine CBC news and public affairs programs. I do watch a few of the CBC shows that are only on CBC, but right now, they are all in reruns.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

We'll it seems as though we are two Canadians (four if you count our spouses) who feel their $29.00 contribution for the CBC is well spent.

Along the thinking of this thread Dr.G., do you feel as though there is a 'Left Wing' or 'Liberal' bias to the CBC?


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

mrjimmy said:


> We'll it seems as though we are two Canadians (four if you count our spouses) who feel their $29.00 contribution for the CBC is well spent.
> 
> Along the thinking of this thread Dr.G., do you feel as though there is a 'Left Wing' or 'Liberal' bias to the CBC?


I would subscribe to the CBC if it was an option, mrj, which is how much I enjoy this overall station.

I don't see them with a "Liberal bias", much like PBS. They are honest and open in their reporting ............ unlike Fox News. Now, if you want a bias, that is the station to watch. 

The big battle in our house over CBC is my wife wanting to listen to CBC Two on the radio, and me wanting to listen to CBC One, especially when the news is on. We are in agreement over the fine quality of our local CBC One programing on the radio, and the local TV coverage, but when I want to listen to the world and Canadian news, she seems to be in the mood for music. Such is Life.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

chas_m's math is incorrect. 

Tax payers pay for the CBC, not the entire population. Demographically, based on the last census, when you eliminate those by age who are unlikely to be paying tax (0-19 - yes teenagers can work and pay tax but in most circumstances would make below the personal exemption and therefore would be tax exempt) that takes 1/4 of the population out of the equation. This makes the cost of the CBC on an annual basis per capita $40. Still not a whole lot but just for accuracy sake...

However, no matter the cost to the individual, it is irrelevant to the matter at hand which is whether or not the CBC is biased in their news broadcasting. Additionally I would suggest that it the bigger picture should include their programming in general, which includes many other "reportage" types of programs.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

mrjimmy said:


> We'll it seems as though we are two Canadians (four if you count our spouses) who feel their $29.00 contribution for the CBC is well spent.
> 
> Along the thinking of this thread Dr.G., do you feel as though there is a 'Left Wing' or 'Liberal' bias to the CBC?


Gee I wonder how two left leaning individuals would answer that question? 

Isn't it interesting that those here in this thread who would be considered to be on the left side of the fence see no bias and those who would be considered to be on the right side of the fence see a bias. I wonder why that is? 

You would think that if the CBC were balanced, both sides would see no or little bias.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Members of the friends of the CBC cult see no bias because it fits their philosophy exactly.


----------



## chasMac (Jul 29, 2008)

From the ombudsman's report. It addresses Mallick's piece, but more importantly touches on the ideology that permeates CBCNews.ca and CBC newsworld.



> But there is another significant aspect to our policy. As mentioned, it calls on CBC outlets to touch on the widest range of views possible. On CBCNews.ca, there does not appear to be a wide range of “pointy” views. *For instance, many of those who complained claimed that there is no one of an opposite ideological viewpoint readily apparent on the service. Unfortunately, this appears to be true.* As I observed in an earlier review concerning CBC Newsworld programming, the CBC should not necessarily avoid having people of strong views on the air, but *we must ensure that people of differing views are given a fair opportunity*.
> It has been argued by some who have supported Ms. Mallick that the comments that have been carried in the Comments section provide balance on the subject. I disagree. The prominent space and highlighting of columnists implies a different status compared to users who comment on the various stories. *Appropriate space should be given to a wider range of views.*


 (My emphasis)
http://www.cbc.ca/ombudsman/page/MALLICK-PALIN.pdf 

It would appear to agree with what many of us on here who are critical of the CBC are frustrated with. Far too often (yes exceptions exist), only one viewpoint is presented.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

screature said:


> This makes the cost of the CBC on an annual basis per capita $40. Still not a whole lot but just for accuracy sake...


I want my $40 back. I didn't subscribe to this and I want no part of the culture war the CBC is waging.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Vandave said:


> I want my $40 back. I didn't subscribe to this and I want no part of the culture war the CBC is waging.


The taxpayers are revolting!


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

You got that right. Unlike those who CHOOSE to buy cable or satellite that might subsidize other networks.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

screature said:


> Gee I wonder how two left leaning individuals would answer that question?
> 
> Isn't it interesting that those here in this thread who would be considered to be on the left side of the fence see no bias and those who would be considered to be on the right side of the fence see a bias. I wonder why that is?
> 
> You would think that if the CBC were balanced, both sides would see no or little bias.


Dr.G., and I see the CBC as being unbiased: read neutral. Regardless of our leanings, we are intelligent people able to observe and make comment. What I enjoy about the CBC is their lack of bias. If they were Left leaning in my opinion, I would agree with you and call them on it. I find any bias in news reporting to be unacceptable.

Isn't it surprising how Ezra Levant sees it as biased. Perhaps it's just not extreme enough for him. Perhaps he'd be happier if Anne Coulter replaced Rex Murphy and Bill O'Reilly was anchoring The National. No bias there...


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

mrjimmy said:


> Dr.G., and I see the CBC as being unbiased: read neutral. Regardless of our leanings, we are intelligent people able to observe and make comment. What I enjoy about the CBC is their lack of bias. If they were Left leaning in my opinion, I would agree with you and call them on it. I find any bias in news reporting to be unacceptable.
> 
> Isn't it surprising how Ezra Levant sees it as biased. Perhaps it's just not extreme enough for him. Perhaps he'd be happier if Anne Coulter replaced Rex Murphy and Bill O'Reilly was anchoring The National. No bias there...


Your right, I guess you and Dr. G. are the measure of neutrality. I didn't realize. So no study is necessary after all, the CBC should have asked you guys first and saved some money.


----------



## Rps (May 2, 2009)

Personally, much of our subsidized monies to the CBC go to areas that "we" never see or hear. If we look at the mandate, the CBC covers everything from Nfld to Victoria, Windsor [ a U.S. satellite outpost ] to Baffin Island. They broadcast in many languages and cultures .... but is the mandate correct? With the news, is only the English portion under suspect, what about the French and Native portion? Really what we should really be asking is : Is the mandate reasonable, since I believe the mandate drives this issue. As for CBC TV, for the most part, here in Ontario, it sucks big time [ programming over an entire day, entire week ] the radio, however, is a much different story. If only the TV could be as good as the radio!!!

As for my bent, I am conservative in nature and I find the CBC fairly balanced on national issues [ why because when I see other network news they are saying the same things ] but regionally, I can't speak for the West nor the East, but in Ontario we have a markedly Toronto flair.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Rps said:


> As for my bent, I am conservative in nature and* I find the CBC fairly balanced on national issues* [ why because when I see other network news they are saying the same things ] but regionally, I can't speak for the West nor the East, but in Ontario we have a markedly Toronto flair.


On that we will have to agree to disagree Rps.


----------



## Rps (May 2, 2009)

Screature, if we had more people who would just agree to disagree, and leave issues at that, wouldn't the world be a better place?


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

screature said:


> Gee I wonder how two left leaning individuals would answer that question?
> 
> Isn't it interesting that those here in this thread who would be considered to be on the left side of the fence see no bias and those who would be considered to be on the right side of the fence see a bias. I wonder why that is?
> 
> You would think that if the CBC were balanced, both sides would see no or little bias.


Why do you feel I am a "left leaning individual", screature?


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

mrjimmy said:


> Dr.G., and I see the CBC as being unbiased: read neutral. Regardless of our leanings, we are intelligent people able to observe and make comment. What I enjoy about the CBC is their lack of bias. If they were Left leaning in my opinion, I would agree with you and call them on it. I find any bias in news reporting to be unacceptable.
> 
> Isn't it surprising how Ezra Levant sees it as biased. Perhaps it's just not extreme enough for him. Perhaps he'd be happier if Anne Coulter replaced Rex Murphy and Bill O'Reilly was anchoring The National. No bias there...


Amen Brother. Of course, when Anne Coulter replaces Rex Murphy, I stop watching CBC on Thursday nights. Bill O'Reilly replacing Peter Mansbridge??? I stop watching The National.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Rps said:


> Personally, much of our subsidized monies to the CBC go to areas that "we" never see or hear. If we look at the mandate, the CBC covers everything from Nfld to Victoria, Windsor [ a U.S. satellite outpost ] to Baffin Island. They broadcast in many languages and cultures .... but is the mandate correct? With the news, is only the English portion under suspect, what about the French and Native portion? Really what we should really be asking is : Is the mandate reasonable, since I believe the mandate drives this issue. As for CBC TV, for the most part, here in Ontario, it sucks big time [ programming over an entire day, entire week ] the radio, however, is a much different story. If only the TV could be as good as the radio!!!
> 
> As for my bent, I am conservative in nature and I find the CBC fairly balanced on national issues [ why because when I see other network news they are saying the same things ] but regionally, I can't speak for the West nor the East, but in Ontario we have a markedly Toronto flair.


Valid points, Rps, especially your comments about CBC TV being more like CBC Radio One (I hate what they have done to CBC Radio Two). 

Luckily, we have a strong CBC Radio One and CBC TV here in NL (there is no more Nfld), and it does not just take a St.John's-centric approach. This way, we are able to keep abrest of the news and events from all over our province.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Rps said:


> Screature, if we had more people who would just agree to disagree, and leave issues at that, wouldn't the world be a better place?


Amen, Brother. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Dr.G. said:


> Why do you feel I am a "left leaning individual", screature?


Dr. G., not to answer for screature, but I recall you saying that socialism was an admirable form of government a few weeks ago.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Dr.G. said:


> Why do you feel I am a "left leaning individual", screature?


If incorrect I apologize. But I seem to remember you have made posts regarding working on NDP candidate campaigns and I even seem to recall you were asked by the NDP to run as a candidate. Also just the general nature of some of your more"politically" orientated posts. Again if I am wrong sorry for the assumption.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Rps said:


> Screature, if we had more people who would just agree to disagree, and leave issues at that, wouldn't the world be a better place?


Indeed.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Dr.G. said:


> Valid points, Rps, especially your comments about CBC TV being more like CBC Radio One *(I hate what they have done to CBC Radio Two)*.
> 
> Luckily, we have a strong CBC Radio One and CBC TV here in NL (there is no more Nfld), and it does not just take a St.John's-centric approach. This way, we are able to keep abrest of the news and events from all over our province.


Perhaps it is a generational thing... but I love what they have done with CBC Radio Two. I almost never listened to it before, now it is a "programmed" channel on my car radio and I switch back and forth between it and CBC Radio One, depending on what is airing.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

screature said:


> If incorrect I apologize. But I seem to remember you have made posts regarding working on NDP candidate campaigns and I even seem to recall you were asked by the NDP to run as a candidate. Also just the general nature of some of your more"politically" orientated posts. Again if I am wrong sorry for the assumption.


No need to apologize, screature ........... just no need to label. I have been asked by the Green Party to run, not the NDP Paix, mon ami.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

screature said:


> Perhaps it is a generational thing... but I love what they have done with CBC Radio Two. I almost never listened to it before, now it is a "programmed" channel on my car radio and I switch back and forth between it and CBC Radio One, depending on what is airing.


Good for you, screature. Yes, they are programming CBC Two for a younger demographic, and it is good to see you have been brought into the fold. A fine use of our tax dollars. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Macfury said:


> Dr. G., not to answer for screature, but I recall you saying that socialism was an admirable form of government a few weeks ago.


True, I am all for New Deal/Great Society socialism. I just don't see the need to label me on the left, in much the same way that to label you on the right does not advance the arguement. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Dr.G. said:


> No need to apologize, screature ........... just no need to label. I have been asked by the Green Party to run, not the NDP Paix, mon ami.


Ok Dr. G. (I would consider the Greens, left of centre though), but didn't mean to offend.  I assumed you wouldn't be offended by being associated with being left of centre. My bad.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Dr.G. said:


> True, I am all for New Deal/Great Society socialism. I just don't see the need to label me on the left, i*n much the same way that to label you on the right* does not advance the arguement. Paix, mon ami.


C'mon Dr. G. You just called a spade a spade, no need to be so sensitive. I think that the most of us probably consider ourselves "centrists". The grey area being, where is the "centre". 

I will freely admit that my political proclivities, in general, lean to the right. I only take exception to being labelled a Conservative, as I belong to no political party, nor do I vote exclusively for one.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

screature said:


> Ok Dr. G. (I would consider the Greens, left of centre though), but didn't mean to offend.  I assumed you wouldn't be offended by being associated with being left of centre. My bad.


I am not offended, screature, since I have been called far worse in my day. Still, I tire of labels and don't see how it advanced the level of the debate. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

screature said:


> C'mon Dr. G. You just called a spade a spade, no need to be so sensitive. I think that the most of us probably consider ourselves "centrists". The grey area being, where is the "centre".


I still contend that for me to label you left, center or right does not advance the quality of the debate on whatever the issue. So, I hold my opinions, you hold your opinions, mrj, Macfury, MacDoc, et al hold their opinions. A open and honest debate does not need labels ............. just respect for the other person's right to express their views. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

In principal I know where you are coming from and I agree. If only we saw no "colours" just people... Unfortunately the vast majority have not evolved to that state of mind and so sometimes "labels" are often used for the sake of identifying differentiation. Especially when dealing with politics which regrettably has a particularly partisan and "labelling" penchant/basis.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

screature said:


> In principal I know where you are coming from and I agree. If only we saw no "colours" just people... Unfortunately the vast majority have not evolved to that state of mind and so sometimes "labels" are often used for the sake of identifying differentiation. Especially when dealing with politics which regrettably has a particularly partisan and "labelling" penchant/basis.


Well, my friend, why keep adding to this "identifying differentation"? "Think different" .............. or at least differently if you want to be syntactically correct.


----------



## Rps (May 2, 2009)

No to put too fine a point on it, I think we have become desensitized to the concept of diversity ... generally politically correct views highlight: gender [ not sex ] colour [ not race ] religion and sexual orientation ...... but no where do they talk about diversity of thought .... which is amazing since more grief has beset the world from a "thought" than one's gender, race, or sexual orientation. Due to this, I believe, we have been homogenized politically .... that is the reason all parties seem to be the same [ an occurrence that appears to be happening in the U.S. as well .... political ranting aside .... you judge parties by their actions, not their ranting ] which leaves the beach head of diversity of thought untouched, or unassailable ....not sure which one is the dominant .... but our news services definitely reflect this.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Dr.G. said:


> Well, my friend, why keep adding to this "identifying differentation"? "Think different" .............. or at least differently if you want to be syntactically correct.


Because, although perhaps politically incorrect at times to admit, differentiation/differences does/do exist.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

Imagine you're the owner of an amusement park and the government opens one up right next door funded by a huge wad of tax payer cash each year. The taxes your business generates helps keep them afloat. Many of your potential patrons get siphoned off by the new state owned amusement park and it takes a big bite out of your revenue stream. Times get tough and you have to start cutting staff or just declare bankruptcy while at the Government amusement park its business as usual and they just go hat in hand to Ottawa for a cash infusion. 
Would it be fair to the private business to have to compete against its own government for its very survival? This stinks as much as corporate welfare.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## Rps (May 2, 2009)

MacGuiver, yes there is some truth in what you say, but I remember a time, not too long ago in the scheme, that there was little opportunities for Canadian talent .... only the CBC would carry you. We have grown past those days, and as I say maybe we should review its mandate, but for one who was trying to secure a recording contract and wash upon the white lights of fame and fortune, I will always have a soft spot for the CBC and Sam the Record Man, they, at the time, were the only ones who cared.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

screature said:


> Your right, I guess you and Dr. G. are the measure of neutrality. I didn't realize. So no study is necessary after all, the CBC should have asked you guys first and saved some money.


Are you infering that Dr.G. and I are incapable of determining bias? Like I said, I prefer my news unbiased and neutral and that's what I feel I get from the CBC.

Are you actually looking for neutrality screature or would you simply like your _percieved bias_ to shift a little more your way?


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

mrjimmy said:


> Are you infering that Dr.G. and I are incapable of determining bias? Like I said, I prefer my news unbiased and neutral and that's what I feel I get from the CBC.
> 
> Are you actually looking for neutrality screature or would you simply like your _percieved bias_ to shift a little more your way?


Not at all. I thought the sarcasm was fairly evident. Merely suggesting that "neutral" is a relative term. Besides it isn't about neutrality at all it is about balance. Every report will have its bias one way or the other, just as individuals do, it is about presenting an equal number of biased reports. That is what will yield balance.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

mrjimmy said:


> Are you infering that Dr.G. and I are incapable of determining bias? Like I said, I prefer my news unbiased and neutral and that's what I feel I get from the CBC.
> 
> Are you actually looking for neutrality screature or would you simply like your _percieved bias_ to shift a little more your way?


Right, it's your "feelings" that satisfy you with CBC, nothing to do with reality.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

screature said:


> Not at all. I thought the sarcasm was fairly evident. Merely suggesting that "neutral" is a relative term. Besides it isn't about neutrality at all it is about balance.


Neutrality as in unbiased. Not leaning one way or the other. You know, 'just the facts Jack'. I say neutral, you say balanced... fells like semantics to me. 

You should become a school teacher with your need to constantly correct people. You do it in almost every thread. For consistency I give you an A+!


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

SINC said:


> Right, it's your "feelings" that satisfy you with CBC, nothing to do with reality.


Mine and Dr.G.'s feelings.

And it's your "feelings" that satisfy _you_ with CBC, nothing to do with reality.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

mrjimmy said:


> You should become a school teacher with your need to constantly correct people. You do it in almost every thread. For consistency I give you an A+!


Says the sage who corrected me to tell me that voluntary purchase of a TV signal is one and the same and totally comparable to mandatory taxation.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

SINC said:


> Says the sage who corrected me to tell me that voluntary purchase of a TV signal is one and the same and totally comparable to mandatory taxation.


You must have misplaced your reading glasses. I said:



mrjimmy said:


> it draws a close parallel.


Do you need me to explain that to you?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Nope, I recognize an error when I see one.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

SINC said:


> Nope, I recognize an error when I see one.


I invite you to go back and reread the posts. 

Also, I invite you to look up the phrase 'drawing a parallel'. Try using it in a few sentences. Get a feel for it.

I think all you might be recognizing is nothing.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

mrjimmy said:


> I invite you to go back and reread the posts.
> 
> Also, I invite you to look up the phrase 'drawing a parallel'. Try using it in a few sentences. Get a feel for it.
> 
> I think all you might be recognizing is nothing.


Still on that touchy-feely kick are we?

I "feel" with the sense of touch. Other than that I analyse to form an opinion and a voluntary paid subscription is light years away from a mandatory taxation. They are in no way drawing a parallel. They are extreme opposites.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

SINC said:


> Still on that touchy-feely kick are we?
> 
> I "feel" with the sense of touch. Other than that I analyse to form an opinion and a voluntary paid subscription is light years away from a mandatory taxation. They are in no way drawing a parallel. They are extreme opposites.


Oh well. you don't get it. I'm done derailing. Sorry screature.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

SINC said:


> I "feel" with the sense of touch. Other than that I analyse to form an opinion and a voluntary paid subscription is light years away from a mandatory taxation. They are in no way drawing a parallel. They are extreme opposites.


Agreed. I think mrjimmy now _feels_ he's had enough.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Is that really the best you've got?

Wow.

Hey, look at all the definitions of feel! SINC only has one. 'Bout right. 

feel (fl)
v. felt (flt), feel·ing, feels
v.tr.
1.
a. To perceive through the sense of touch: feel the velvety smoothness of a peach.
b. To perceive as a physical sensation: feel a sharp pain; feel the cold.
2.
a. To touch.
b. To examine by touching. See Synonyms at touch.
3. To test or explore with caution: feel one's way in a new job.
4.
a. To undergo the experience of: felt my interest rising; felt great joy.
b. To be aware of; sense: felt the anger of the crowd.
c. To be emotionally affected by: She still feels the loss of her dog.
5.
a. To be persuaded of (something) on the basis of intuition, emotion, or other indefinite grounds: I feel that what the informant says may well be true.
b. To believe; think: She felt his answer to be evasive.
v.intr.
1. To experience sensations of touch.
2.
a. To produce a particular sensation, especially through the sense of touch: The sheets felt smooth.
b. To produce a particular impression; appear to be; seem: It feels good to be home. See Usage Note at well2.
3. To be conscious of a specified kind or quality of physical, mental, or emotional state: felt warm and content; feels strongly about the election.
4. To seek or explore something by the sense of touch: felt for the light switch in the dark.
5. To have compassion or sympathy: I feel for him in his troubles.
n.
1. Perception by or as if by touch; sensation: a feel of autumn in the air.
2. The sense of touch: a surface that is rough to the feel.
3.
a. An act or instance of touching or feeling.
b. Vulgar An act or instance of sexual touching or fondling.
4. The nature or quality of something as perceived by or as if by the sense of touch: "power steering that seems overassisted, eliminating road feel" (Mark Ginsburg).
5. Overall impression or effect; atmosphere: "gives such disparate pictures . . . a crazily convincing documentary feel" (Stephen King).
6. Intuitive awareness or natural ability: has a feel for decorating.
Phrasal Verbs:
feel out
To try cautiously or indirectly to ascertain the viewpoint or nature of.
feel up Vulgar
To touch or fondle (someone) sexually.
Idioms:
feel in (one's) bones
To have an intuition of.
feel like Informal
To have an inclination or desire for: felt like going for a walk.
feel like (oneself)
To sense oneself as being in one's normal state of health or spirits: I just don't feel like myself today.
feel (one's) oats
1. To be energetic and playful.
2. To act in a self-important manner.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Well, unless you touched the concept, SINC had it right.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

All those definitions are wrong. Feel implies the sense of touch. End of story. You don't feel that you miss your dog.

You might sense an emptiness, but you "feel" nothing, nor can you "feel" informal. You can't feel what you can't touch. It is a widely used misconception that in fact does not exist in the strictest definition of the word.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

SINC said:


> All those definitions are wrong. Feel implies the sense of touch. End of story. You don't feel that you miss your dog.
> 
> You might sense an emptiness, but you "feel" nothing, nor can you "feel" informal. You can't feel what you can't touch. It is a widely used misconception that in fact does not exist in the strictest definition of the word.


One man's quest to refute convention; Don Sinclair starring in:

_*SINC versus The Dictionary.*_

Hear such classics as:

*End of Story! *

and 

*Those definitions are wrong!*

Gasp at the absurdity of it all!

Rated R for Ridiculous.

Feel - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

SINC said:


> All those definitions are wrong. Feel implies the sense of touch. End of story. You don't feel that you miss your dog.
> 
> You might sense an emptiness, but you "feel" nothing, nor can you "feel" informal. You can't feel what you can't touch. It is a widely used misconception that in fact does not exist in the strictest definition of the word.


we are of course going WAY of the original topic, but i "feel" you're way off here.

so people don't feel sad? or feel lonely? or feel happy? by your definition those are all incorrect phrases?


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

chasMac said:


> I might say you are a pompous twit who feigns cleverness by posting college reading lists.


Pompous, of course. Twit, almost certainly. You didn't respond to my allegation that you're thick though. I don't see the point of your words.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

i-rui said:


> we are of course going WAY of the original topic, but i "feel" you're way off here.
> 
> so people don't feel sad? or feel lonely? or feel happy? by your definition those are all incorrect phrases?


Yep. Tell me, is sad smooth or rough? Is lonely dry or slimy? Is happy sharp or dull?

If you can't tell me, you can't feel them.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

What?

LOL.

Whatever_ did_ happen to this thread. This sure ain't Kansas, Toto.


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

> New brain scanning technologies are revealing that the part of the brain that processes physical pain also deals with emotional pain.


How emotional pain can really hurt


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

I have some strong feelings about the CBC and sometimes I truly feel for them. At times I feel like I have to reach out and touch someone that works there.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Like, as in strangle them, kps?


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

LOL...I'm feeling the rope burn.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

kps said:


> I have some strong feelings about the CBC and sometimes I truly feel for them. At times I feel like I have to reach out and touch someone that works there.


I feel your pain.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Carry on boys. Feel is a physical action, not an emotion. Get over it.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

SINC said:


> Carry on boys. Feel is a physical action, not an emotion. Get over it.


Oh that eternal conundrum:

Dictionary or SINC, Dictionary or SINC....

What to do, what to do.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

mrjimmy said:


> Oh that eternal conundrum:
> 
> Dictionary or SINC, Dictionary or SINC....
> 
> What to do, what to do.


Semantically speaking, in the English language, to feel/feeling is both a direct physical sensation, and indirect physical sensation, an awareness or a conscious sensation, as in "I felt great excitment at the end of the Habs hockey game #7." Thus, everyone is correct on this count. That's the beauty of the English language and the multiple meanings of words.

Tomorrow's word is the word "run" and all the words derived from this little word. Paix, mes amis.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Dr.G. said:


> Semantically speaking, in the English language, to feel/feeling is both a direct physical sensation, and indirect physical sensation, an awareness or a conscious sensation, as in "I felt great excitment at the end of the Habs hockey game #7." Thus, everyone is correct on this count. That's the beauty of the English language and the multiple meanings of words.
> 
> Tomorrow's word is the word "run" and all the words derived from this little word. Paix, mes amis.


Thanks Dr.G.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

SINC said:


> Yep. Tell me, is sad smooth or rough? Is lonely dry or slimy? Is happy sharp or dull?
> 
> If you can't tell me, you can't feel them.


sad = rough

lonely = dry

happy = sharp


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Nice try, but I don't buy it.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

SINC said:


> Nice try, but I don't buy it.


Thus spoke the Sinctionary.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Now there you go using a wrong word again.


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

mrjimmy said:


> Thus spoke the Sinctionary.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Ottawaman said:


>


----------



## chasMac (Jul 29, 2008)

Adrian. said:


> I don't see the point of your words.


Sigh. Put it down to your twitishness. Let's move on, this thread contains better debates by better people.


----------

