# How do you feel about Harper's fine-print move to control the CBC?



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

I'm surprised others haven't posted about this already, and I'm sure some here will happily receive the news that the Conservatives slipped a little nasty for the CBC and other historically "arm's length" public agencies into their latest omnibus bill. It seems that Harper would like to have more direct control over policy decisions at the CBC, as well as cultural and scientific research institutions.



> Bill C-60, the Tories’ budget implementation bill, includes a clause that allows the prime minister’s cabinet to approve salaries, working conditions and collective bargaining positions for the CBC, The Hill Times reports.


The CBC has certainly been critical of this government, but then it was critical of the previous government and pretty much every government before it. So it seems that Harper can't take the heat, and wants to turn the CBC into his PR machine. It's his money, after all.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

The con supporters have shown a very clear strong support for their leader considering our money his for his own political campaign/promotion.

No surprise there.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

How do you feel about Harper's fine-print move to control the CBC?



bryanc said:


> I'm surprised others haven't posted about this already ...


Nothing... and I'm not, because the government isn't. 

All it means is to have a Treasury Board rep sitting at the table when negotiating collective contracts. More typical leftist spin trying to make it out to be something that it is not. 

It is about making sure they are getting good value for money considering the Government gives the CBC over $1B every year.

Notice nobody seems to give a rats ass that the same thing is happening to troubled Canada Post and Via Rail because the CBC is the poster child of the left wing media in Canada.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Sadly OGL, the control freak, wants control over other Crown Corporations as well. Via Rail, Canada Post etc. Why are there Boards of Governance and professional management at these corporations? Why are these people still on the public dime?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

screature said:


> Nothing... and I'm not, because the government isn't.


The usual FUD. I'd feel great if Harper simply axed public support of the CBC altogether, in incremental--but mirthful--doses.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

I guess this means Murdoch Mysteries is going to be on the air for a long time to come....


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Sonal said:


> I guess this means Murdoch Mysteries is going to be on the air for a long time to come....


Perhaps, but if you believe the FUD around here, the script will be written by the office of the Prime Minister.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Perhaps, but if you believe the FUD around here, the script will be written by the office of the Prime Minister.


He did have a cameo.... perhaps he wants a recurring role?


----------



## macintosh doctor (Mar 23, 2009)

CBC is a massive money pit that is run by over entitled employees - they should cut them loose and let the free market take it over so those who run
CBC learn a lesson about the value of money. 
Otherwise I agree with team Harper. 
State owned means state run.

It's over run by unions as well. They pay the same salary to people in ONTARIO as they do in PEI.. Makes no sense, as PEI life is cheaper.


----------



## heavyall (Nov 2, 2012)

The bill doesn't even come close to doing what the left is claiming. And that is unfortunate, because the government _should_ take significant control of the CBC's finances.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

heavyall said:


> The bill doesn't even come close to doing what the left is claiming. And that is unfortunate, because the government _should_ take significant control of the CBC's finances.


Again why pay for the professional management and the stipend for a Board of Directors. Let's at least save the money from that dead weight that is if the PMO is going to running things.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

macintosh doctor said:


> CBC is a massive money pit that is run by over entitled employees - they should cut them loose and let the free market take it over so those who run CBC learn a lesson about the value of money.


*Um*. _What?_ The "free market"? Are you out of your freakin' mind? The "free market" is a myth. The efficiencies that the "invisible hand" supposedly attains, if they truly existed, are negated by market manipulations. Left to the "free market", there would be no need for Faux News North... the CBC would sink to the lowest common denominator pretty damn quickly.

Our societies accept certain deficiencies in state-run enterprises to attain social / economic goals. Corporations - beholden to the shareholder and the profit motive - will not spend money to attain developments that the people, through government, desire.

Certainly we should strive for efficiencies - but the solution to that search is never to toss these state-run enterprises to the wolves. Privatization has a long, sordid history...


----------



## whatiwant (Feb 21, 2008)

I've had friends who've worked at the CBC, about as left as they come. All Of them felt that it was pretty much impossible to get anything done due to entitled workers protected by their union. They all left to find enployment elsewhere. Take from that what you will. 

I don't agree with the precedent of gov involvement. 

However I have grown really tired of the CBCs biased antics over the past decade. Their content is garbage. Their BList personalities are tiresome.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

I like the CBC and all its original programs, from The Nature of Things to The Fifth Estate to Little Mosque on the Prairie. I don't want to see it become another Fox News.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

jawknee said:


> I've had friends who've worked at the CBC, about as left as they come. All Of them felt that it was pretty much impossible to get anything done due to entitled workers protected by their union. They all left to find enployment elsewhere. Take from that what you will.
> 
> I don't agree with the precedent of gov involvement.
> 
> However I have grown really tired of the CBCs biased antics over the past decade. Their content is garbage. Their BList personalities are tiresome.


This.

The CBC's leftist agenda has been firmly established since the beginning and blossomed in the 70s. As a state broadcaster its bias is clearly worn on its sleeve and is better measured by what they don't cover, than by what they do cover. It's an old boys entitlement club and should be privatized and the sooner the better.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

I'd like to see Harper try.

SHould help put a few more nails in the coffin...


----------



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

fjnmusic said:


> I like the CBC and all its original programs, from The Nature of Things to The Fifth Estate to Little Mosque on the Prairie. I don't want to see it become another Fox News.


I agree. Their national and local news programs, along with programs like The Fifth Estate and Marketplace are quality programs worth the money we spend on them.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Dr.G. said:


> I agree. Their national and local news programs, along with programs like The Fifth Estate and Marketplace are quality programs worth the money we spend on them.


Two words for you sir: PAY TV.

You simply pay to support the programs you like directly.


----------



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

Macfury said:


> Two words for you sir: PAY TV.
> 
> You simply pay to support the programs you like directly.


But I am paying for CBC through my tax dollars and getting the programs that I like. So, it works well for me.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Dr.G. said:


> But I am paying for CBC through my tax dollars and getting the programs that I like. So, it works well for me.


But I am paying for CBC through my tax dollars and I am not getting a single program that I like. So, it works terribly for me.


----------



## iMouse (Mar 1, 2008)

The early model for CBC was BBC, good old "Auntie" or "the Beeb".

Like that service, production costs were funded by a TV licence fee, even though you may have never watched it. 

This has basically not changed, except the to funding part coming out of tax revenue, not TV sales.

What has changed is the greed of successive governments to make the CBC a for-profit organization, by adding commercial content.

If you will remember Cable TV was a promise of paying for the content that you want. The CRTC soon made short work of that Utopian idea by mandating content.

It now falls on NetFlix, et al, to provide what the others will not, commercial-free content.


----------



## heavyall (Nov 2, 2012)

groovetube said:


> I'd like to see Harper try.
> 
> SHould help put a few more nails in the coffin...


Careful what you wish for. Selling and/or shuttering the CBC is a very widely held desire in this country. It's more likely that CPC support would go up if they axed it.

That said, Harper is nowhere near as conservative as the people who are voting for him. It's highly unlikely he'd consider axing the CBC, even if the public was demanding it.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

heavyall said:


> Careful what you wish for. Selling and/or shuttering the CBC is a very widely held desire in this country. It's more likely that CPC support would go up if they axed it.
> 
> That said, Harper is nowhere near as conservative as the people who are voting for him. It's highly unlikely he'd consider axing the CBC, even if the public was demanding it.


nonsense. It's well known it's near political suicide to do so. Even Harper is smart enough to know this, otherwise he would have done it.

Despite the wildest fantasies of the minority who are strong conservatives.


----------



## heavyall (Nov 2, 2012)

groovetube said:


> nonsense. It's well known it's near political suicide to do so.


Well known by who?

Other than Hockey Night in Canada, not many people watch it.

https://www.bbm.ca/_documents/top_30_tv_programs_english/2013/2012-13_04_15_TV_ME_NationalTop30.pdf


----------



## macintosh doctor (Mar 23, 2009)

Dr.G. said:


> I agree. Their national and local news programs, along with programs like The Fifth Estate and Marketplace are quality programs worth the money we spend on them.


NOT WORTH THE AMOUNT THE TAX PAYERS ARE PAYING!!!!




CubaMark said:


> *Um*. _What?_ The "free market"? Are you out of your freakin' mind? The "free market" is a myth. The efficiencies that the "invisible hand" supposedly attains, if they truly existed, are negated by market manipulations. Left to the "free market", there would be no need for Faux News North... the CBC would sink to the lowest common denominator pretty damn quickly.
> 
> Our societies accept certain deficiencies in state-run enterprises to attain social / economic goals. Corporations - beholden to the shareholder and the profit motive - will not spend money to attain developments that the people, through government, desire.
> 
> Certainly we should strive for efficiencies - but the solution to that search is never to toss these state-run enterprises to the wolves. Privatization has a long, sordid history...


let me share my experience with the CBC.. you will see the taxes being wasted and the entitled at play..
I was called up for an equipment purchase.. given amount to work with, I said I can come in much much less.. the person said NO NO NO, COME IN ON TARGET!! 
but I was amazed and replied but why?
the person said if I dont spend the money I get every year, no matter if I dont need it.. I wont get it again next year and the yearly increase.. 

THAT MY FRIENDS IS WASTE.....shut down the CBC, taxes are being wasted..

There was other questionable behavior I will not even mention.. I am not going to even say it.. because I dont play that game..

once again.. SHUT DOWN THE CBC OR SELL IT TO FREE MARKET... 

really if you think about it? how can one channel anchored by Peter Mansbridge survive?

then there is the unions that hold the place hostage.. I had a friend work at the CBC, they had an union go on strike and he was forced to strike because his department was part of that local - he told them he wont and they warned him to tow the line or else.. seriously?


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

It's surprising just how whiny some conservative-minded people can be in their complaints about the Canadian Broadcasting Company. Just because a broadcaster isn't a far right wing idealogue does not make them leftist. I find the coverage by the CBC pretty balanced actually. If the ruling party looks bad, it's likely their own fault. I remember many scathing reports on Paul Martin and the Liberals. With politics it's the nature of the beast, unless you find ways to avoid the scrum altogether, as Mr. Harper has learned to do.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

fjnmusic said:


> Just because a broadcaster isn't a far right wing idealogue does not make them leftist. I find the coverage by the CBC pretty balanced actually. If the ruling party looks bad, it's likely their own fault. I remember many scathing reports on Paul Martin and the Liberals. With politics it's the nature of the beast, unless you find ways to avoid the scrum altogether, as Mr. Harper has learned to do.


The bias is consistently left, but may look balanced to you because it matches your own viewpoints, which you believe to be balanced. To me, you come across on these boards as consistently left of centre. 

This has far more to do with the philosophy of their coverage than the way in which any particular leader or party is covered.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

The CBC is not even mildly right wing. Look no further than this thread. Only the resident lefties and socialists are singing its praises. The further left the commentator, the more passionate they are about its merits.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

iMouse said:


> The early model for CBC was BBC, good old "Auntie" or "the Beeb".
> 
> Like that service, production costs were funded by a TV licence fee, even though you may have never watched it.


CBC-TV was never funded by a license fee. It was devised as a commercial-free TV network subsidized by taxpayers, but held out on its no advertisement policy for only a couple of weeks after launching in 1952. By the 1960s, it showed more commercial content than its American counterparts, trimming the length of U.S. shows by up to a minute per half hour to cram more commercials in.

Interestingly, it was CBC radio that consistently intervened against private broadcasters who were eager to begin Canadian television broadcasting as early as the late 1930s. CBC radio's argument? It was not ready itself to begin TV broadcasting, so it quashed competitors until it moved its lazy ass into gear more than a decade later.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

Macfury said:


> The bias is consistently left, but may look balanced to you because it matches your own viewpoints, which you believe to be balanced. To me, you come across on these boards as consistently left of centre.
> 
> This has far more to do with the philosophy of their coverage than the way in which any particular leader or party is covered.


Using your own argument, perhaps the CBC may look unbalanced to you because it doesn't match your own viewpoints, which you believe to be balanced. To me, you come across on these boards as consistently right of centre. See how that works?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

fjnmusic said:


> Using your own argument, perhaps the CBC may look unbalanced to you because it doesn't match your own viewpoints, which you believe to be balanced. To me, you come across on these boards as consistently right of centre. See how that works?


No, it doesn't work that way at all. My views are not "balanced"--they are almost consistently right of centre. Why should I "balance" out my views with those I believe to be wrong?

However, as a public entity, the CBC must strive for balance, and it does not. I'm shocked when I see the CBC report anything in a way that is anywhere close to being consistent with my values.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

fjnmusic said:


> It's surprising just how whiny some conservative-minded people can be in their complaints about the Canadian Broadcasting Company. Just because a broadcaster isn't a far right wing idealogue does not make them leftist. I find the coverage by the CBC pretty balanced actually. If the ruling party looks bad, it's likely their own fault. I remember many scathing reports on Paul Martin and the Liberals. With politics it's the nature of the beast, unless you find ways to avoid the scrum altogether, as Mr. Harper has learned to do.


Indeed. What's more the incredible hypocrisy of the right is astounding. Just now, we are witnessing a really right wing racist gang of liars called sun tv, who railed against being subsidized and said they'd neeever look for mandatory carriage, whimpering to the CRTC that if they don't get it, it'll be a death sentence.

Not even ctv news channel gets more than 'must offer'

So if you want see what right wing 'balanced' looks like, there's a goid example of it.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

Macfury said:


> No, it doesn't work that way at all. My views are not "balanced"--they are almost consistently right of centre. Why should I "balance" out my views with those I believe to be wrong?
> 
> However, as a public entity, the CBC must strive for balance, and it does not. I'm shocked when I see the CBC report anything in a way that is anywhere close to being consistent with my values.


Perhaps your values are far right, while the CBC does not stray far from right or left of centrist. It all depends on your point of view. Perhaps my mind is just too liberal to see how fair and balanced FOX News in the US is as well.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

fjnmusic said:


> Perhaps your values are far right, while the CBC does not stray far from right or left of centrist. It all depends on your point of view. Perhaps my mind is just too liberal to see how fair and balanced FOX News in the US is as well.


The CBC strays far left of centre. While FOX is fair, it is not balanced. It skews heavily conservative.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

As I expected, the partisans on both sides are largely missing the point. Heavyall got it; this is not about wether CBC is biased, but to what extent the government ought to _control_ the public broadcaster. I would disagree with Heavyall, in that I think state control of the public information service is a fundamentally bad idea. The CBC's independence is the only thing that allows it to serve a different role than privately owned media; as this independence has eroded, the CBC has decayed. There are certainly some who see this as a good thing, and the strategy of gradually eroding the CBC's ability to do anything the private companies do not has been very effective; there are certainly far fewer now who value the CBC than there were a few decades ago.

I would rather see the opposite strategy; an honest government, who's interests really were the protection of Canadian identity and government transparency, would not be afraid of a robustly funded, arm's length, independent and actively investigative public broadcasting company. Of course, we haven't had such a government in living memory, so this is rather idealistic. Nevertheless, I think the majority of Canadians continue to value the CBC, and are suspicious of the motivations of governments that act to constrain the freedom of the CBC and similar organizations.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc said:


> As I expected, the partisans on both sides are largely missing the point. Heavyall got it; this is not about wether CBC is biased, but to what extent the government ought to _control_ the public broadcaster. I would disagree with Heavyall, in that I think state control of the public information service is a fundamentally bad idea. The CBC's independence is the only thing that allows it to serve a different role than privately owned media; as this independence has eroded, the CBC has decayed. There are certainly some who see this as a good thing, and the strategy of gradually eroding the CBC's ability to do anything the private companies do not has been very effective; there are certainly far fewer now who value the CBC than there were a few decades ago.
> 
> I would rather see the opposite strategy; an honest government, who's interests really were the protection of Canadian identity and government transparency, would not be afraid of a robustly funded, arm's length, independent and actively investigative public broadcasting company. Of course, we haven't had such a government in living memory, so this is rather idealistic. Nevertheless, I think the majority of Canadians continue to value the CBC, and are suspicious of the motivations of governments that act to constrain the freedom of the CBC and similar organizations.


The CBC began its decay in 1952. If you believe its investigative powers are the most important aspect of the CBC, then you should have no trouble divesting it of sports programming, for example.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

I would not want to see government have any control over the CBC. What I would like to see is all government funding halted. Phased out over, say a ten year period, so that not a single taxpayer's dime went to the CBC after that time. It would force the CBC to trim its operations to live within its means on the advertising it sells, and give it an opportunity to reshape its agenda and programming to one that private advertisers would support. If it could not do this, it should not survive.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macfury said:


> The CBC began its decay in 1952. If you believe its investigative powers are the most important aspect of the CBC, then you should have no trouble divesting it of sports programming, for example.


Philosophically, I'd have no problem with this. But pragmatically, such a divestment would have to be coupled with some other revenue stream.

I don't think an advertiser-funded model works well for a public broadcaster; if you're primary function is to serve the public interest, you can't be beholding to private interests (advertisers). The current situation is a bizarre hybrid of public and private funding that I agree does not work well, but it has emerged from historical constraints that we cannot undo.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

SINC said:


> I would not want to see government have any control over the CBC. What I would like to see is all government funding halted. Phased out over, say a ten year period, so that not a single taxpayer's dime went to the CBC after that time. It would force the CBC to trim its operations to live within its means on the advertising it sells, and give it an opportunity to reshape its agenda and programming to one that private advertisers would support. If it could not do this, it should not survive.


Its supporters should have the courage of their convictions. If the CBC has the support of a large majority of Canadians, they will simply activate their PayPal accounts to get value for their money.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

SINC said:


> I would not want to see government have any control over the CBC.


We agree here.


> What I would like to see is all government funding halted.


We disagree here; but it doesn't surprise me, and I can certainly respect your position.



> It would force the CBC to trim its operations to live within its means on the advertising it sells, and give it an opportunity to reshape its agenda and programming to one that private advertisers would support.


Which would make it indistinguishable from the many other privately operated media companies we already have.

If there is any point in having a public broadcasting company, it is to have a source of information that is not controlled by private interests. An alternative to the corporate mouthpieces that are all now controlled by a few astoundingly powerful individuals and corporations. Do you really think it's healthy for our society to allow so few and such ideologically similar interests to be the sole providers of information?

Fortunately, I think all of this is becoming increasingly irrelevant, as more and more people get more and more of their information from the internet, rather than from radio, TV and newspapers; so these media conglomerates are finding they've monopolized a market that is shifting out from under them. Unfortunately, these media conglomerates are sufficiently wealthy and politically powerful that they are finding ways of regulating the internet and drastically limiting what information can be obtained through other sources.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

I do love the push for privatization of Public assets, a re-occuring theme of conservatives.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Yes, fundamentally society see-saws between Corporatism, which is "public risk, private gain", and Communism, which is "private risk, public gain." Neither are acceptable in my view, so it is our task to try to find the correct balance. Currently I think we've shifted too far in favour of Corporatism, but we need to be careful about overbalancing in the other direction as well.


----------



## partsguy (Jul 24, 2012)

The CBC should become something like PBS. Pledge drives. I watch it for hockey, but TSN can do just as well. 

For proof of their political leanings I just need to look at Peter Mansbridge's oh so gentle interview with Justin Trudeau when he became the leader of what is now only the third largest party in Parliament. 

How relevant is the CBC in the age of the internet?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

BigDL said:


> I do love the push for privatization of Public assets, a re-occuring theme of conservatives.


And a noble one. It not only trims union fat, it helps to modernize the system.

However, I would not call the CBC an "asset" in that it has little worth selling.


----------



## macintosh doctor (Mar 23, 2009)

BigDL said:


> I do love the push for privatization of Public assets, a re-occuring theme of conservatives.


if the crown corps are failing then sell them.. simple.. no need to keep PITAs.. 
after all we are in a democratic capitalistic society.. not communist where we need to keep dead beats afloat.




SINC said:


> I would not want to see government have any control over the CBC. What I would like to see is all government funding halted. Phased out over, say a ten year period, so that not a single taxpayer's dime went to the CBC after that time. It would force the CBC to trim its operations to live within its means on the advertising it sells, and give it an opportunity to reshape its agenda and programming to one that private advertisers would support. If it could not do this, it should not survive.


OMG! I can not believe i agree with you.. 

I really dont care if the CBC is left or communist or right or karlmarx views..
Cut funding so they can learn a lesson on financing and budgets... if not sell it and let them spew what ever political view they want.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

macintosh doctor said:


> I really dont care if the CBC is left or communist or right or karlmarx views..
> Cut funding so they can learn a lesson on financing and budgets... if not sell it and let them spew what ever political view they want.


I agree as well. I don't much care what the CBC does--however, I will not stand for the notion that they represent some sort of impartial judgement.

So, make them stand on their own two feet in stages. After a decade, they can read_ Das Kapital _on the air, for all I care.


----------



## macintosh doctor (Mar 23, 2009)

Macfury said:


> I agree as well. I don't much care what the CBC does--however, I will not stand for the notion that they represent some sort of impartial judgement.
> 
> So, make them stand on their own two feet in stages. After a decade, they can read_ Das Kapital _on the air, for all I care.


I will doubt any progress as the unions will run it into the ground and call it progress for all as they stood their ground. LMAO


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

macintosh doctor said:


> I will doubt any progress as the unions will run it into the ground and call it progress for all as they stood their ground. LMAO


Whenever they stand up for the people, it involves a hit to the wallet!


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

partsguy said:


> The CBC should become something like PBS. Pledge drives. I watch it for hockey, but TSN can do just as well.
> 
> For proof of their political leanings I just need to look at Peter Mansbridge's oh so gentle interview with Justin Trudeau when he became the leader of what is now only the third largest party in Parliament.
> 
> How relevant is the CBC in the age of the internet?


what about the 'oh so gentle' interviews stephen harper?

left that one out.


----------



## macintosh doctor (Mar 23, 2009)

Macfury said:


> Whenever they stand up for the people, it involves a hit to the wallet!


we should have a thread for just such a reference..


----------



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

Macfury said:


> I agree as well. I don't much care what the CBC does-- After a decade, they can read_ Das Kapital _on the air, for all I care.


 Are you one of those silent communists that we were warned about as children???????

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkYl_AH-qyk]How to Spot a Communist - YouTube[/ame]

Personally, I do care what the CBC does, and would like to see it keep doing what it is currently doing.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Dr.G. said:


> Personally, I do care what the CBC does, and would like to see it keep doing what it is currently doing.


Outside of Alberta, I think most Canadians agree with you. Certainly, the CBC is very popular around here. And it's the only radio I can stand to listen to; intelligent talk radio CBC radio One, and classical music on CBC radio 2, combined with lack of advertising makes CBC radio the only choice for me.


----------



## macintosh doctor (Mar 23, 2009)

Dr.G. said:


> Are you one of those silent communists that we were warned about as children???????
> 
> Personally, I do care what the CBC does, and would like to see it keep doing what it is currently doing.


i think their leader is 








he is always on the air - they should just name it the MBC - Mansbridge Broadcasting Channel


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc said:


> Outside of Alberta, I think most Canadians agree with you. Certainly, the CBC is very popular around here. And it's the only radio I can stand to listen to; intelligent talk radio CBC radio One, and classical music on CBC radio 2, combined with lack of advertising makes CBC radio the only choice for me.


Sirius will be your friend when the CBC goes private.


----------



## macintosh doctor (Mar 23, 2009)

lets pay tribute to the leader of the CBC - LOL
their humble leader [ watch as his hair vanishes over 25 yrs ].. 






+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

I stand with the vast majority of Canadians on this issue: no government control of CBC, even if a government I like is in charge. It is particularly galling that this government would even attempt this, given that they do not represent a majority of voters.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

I find it amusing that the conservatives here feel the CBC is biased against them; I've enjoyed listening to CBC for decades, and their political discussions have always been scrupulously unpartisan. Wether on TV or on the radio, they interview representatives of all parties, their pundits are always selected to represent all sides, and they offer one of the only public settings where there is genuine exchange of ideas and critical analysis of multiple viewpoints on Canadian issues.

If the CBC is biased against the conservatives, it's because Canadians are biased against the conservatives (which is consistent with the way we vote). The only reason the conservatives are in power is that their support is both ideologically and geographically concentrated; 40% of the vote should not provide a majority mandate for any party (this was even more true with the Liberals held a majority with even less of the popular vote). FPTP is fundamentally incompatible with multiparty systems.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Sadly presenting the facts and not distortions of information (Faux News, Faux News North) has become the new bias.


----------



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

bryanc said:


> Outside of Alberta, I think most Canadians agree with you. Certainly, the CBC is very popular around here. And it's the only radio I can stand to listen to; intelligent talk radio CBC radio One, and classical music on CBC radio 2, combined with lack of advertising makes CBC radio the only choice for me.


Yes, we have certain radios here in our house set to CBC 1 for news and whatever is on during the day, and CBC 2 when we want to listen to music. Paix, mon ami.


----------



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

macintosh doctor said:


> lets pay tribute to the leader of the CBC - LOL
> their humble leader [ watch as his hair vanishes over 25 yrs ]..
> 
> 
> ...


Yes, there was a grand tribute to him last night on The National. I have come to see PM as the Walter Crokite of Canadian TV national news . I also liked Knowlton Nash who came on the national scene on CBC the year after I came to Canada. I trust both of these men, and most of the CBC reporters, to get their news reported correctly and fairly. I especially like the At Issue segment every Thursday night .................. and of course, really enjoy Rex Murphey.

Paix, mon ami.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

bryanc said:


> I find it amusing that the conservatives here feel the CBC is biased against them; I've enjoyed listening to CBC for decades, *and their political discussions have always been scrupulously unpartisan.* Wether on TV or on the radio, they interview representatives of all parties, their pundits are always selected to represent all sides, and they offer one of the only public settings where there is genuine exchange of ideas and critical analysis of multiple viewpoints on Canadian issues.
> 
> If the CBC is biased against the conservatives, it's because Canadians are biased against the conservatives (which is consistent with the way we vote). The only reason the conservatives are in power is that their support is both ideologically and geographically concentrated; 40% of the vote should not provide a majority mandate for any party (this was even more true with the Liberals held a majority with even less of the popular vote). FPTP is fundamentally incompatible with multiparty systems.


Absolutely untrue it doesn't matter that they interview parties on all sides, the side *THEY* (as the broadcaster, just like newspapers, the weighted majority of commentary) are on is always obvious.

Once again, seeing as the facts have been conveniently forgotten since I first posted them, there is going to be NO government control of the CBC. There is going to be a representative from Treasury Board sitting at the table when collective bargaining is being conducted. That does not equate control it simply means that there will be a government voice at the table trying to get best value for dollar.

The CBC will continue to make all their own independent decisions, regarding hiring, programming, content development, etc., etc. The only thing that is changing is having a rep from TB at the bargaining table for collective bargaining... far, far far from being government control. 

Seeing as the government subsidizes them to the tune of over $1B/year I think it is a reasonable change to try and get value for dollar.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

Just for fun... any of you CBC critics want to post the transcript of a CBC report on topic (x) and give a critical dissection? I'd like to see what this "liberal bias" means to you...


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

no comment on the 'oh so gentle' interview of Harper by Mansbridge. No we just want to go on and on about the so called 'liberal bias' but not actually discuss it for like reals.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

CubaMark said:


> Just for fun... any of you CBC critics want to post the transcript of a CBC report on topic (x) and give a critical dissection? I'd like to see what this "liberal bias" means to you...





groovetube said:


> no comment on the 'oh so gentle' interview of Harper by Mansbridge. No we just want to go on and on about the so called 'liberal bias' but not actually discuss it for like reals.


Back at ya. You spend the time to search the CBC archives to defend your position...

But all this is a distraction from the FUD that the left is spinning that somehow having a TB rep at the bargaining table represents government control of the CBC.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

whoa ho wait a second here. I'm not the one making accusations that the CBC has a liberal bias.

Feel free to make your case.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

heavyall said:


> Well known by who?
> 
> Other than Hockey Night in Canada, not many people watch it.
> 
> https://www.bbm.ca/_documents/top_30_tv_programs_english/2013/2012-13_04_15_TV_ME_NationalTop30.pdf


by even Harper himself. DOn't think for a second if he thought he actually had the strong support you think there is that he wouldn't slash and burn the CBC.

Seems Harper is smarter than you are.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

groovetube said:


> whoa ho wait a second here. I'm not the one making accusations that the CBC has a liberal bias.
> 
> Feel free to make your case.


No accusations, just a statement of personal observation. Your statement of personal observation is that the CBC is fair and balanced, i.e. non-partisan in their reporting and programming. 

Feel free to make your case.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

screature said:


> Back at ya. You spend the time to search the CBC archives to defend your position...


Ah, how fun - proving a negative... sheesh. Sure this isn't the Religious thread? 

Look, I don't want to strain your brain. Just the next time something comes up that shows the CBC's liberal bias, take a moment to post it here - no need to go searching, since from all the wailing and gnashing of teeth, there should be a constant stream of evidence which you can offer...


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

screature said:


> No accusations, just a statement of personal observation. Your statement of personal observation is that the CBC is fair and balanced, i.e. non-partisan in their reporting and programming.
> 
> Feel free to make your case.


I'm not falling for the bait and switch.

You guys have made the point that the CBC is biased. now, I don't see it, but I'm certainly willing to listen to any reasoned posts. What I do know, is anytime any of you are asked to give a detailed explanation of this, I only see deflection, cut and running.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

CubaMark said:


> *Ah, how fun - proving a negative... sheesh.* Sure this isn't the Religious thread?
> 
> *Look, I don't want to strain your brain.* Just the next time something comes up that shows the CBC's liberal bias, take a moment to post it here - no need to go searching, since from all the wailing and gnashing of teeth, there should be a constant stream of evidence which you can offer...





groovetube said:


> I'm not falling for the bait and switch.
> 
> You guys have made the point that the CBC is biased. now, I don't see it, but I'm certainly willing to listen to any reasoned posts. What I do know, is anytime any of you are asked to give a detailed explanation of this, I only see deflection, cut and running.


Balderdash... No proving a negative... 

Your *positive* position is that the CBC is fair and balanced in their programming. I am not asking you to prove that they are not left leaning, that would be asking you to prove a negative... I would have thought such a learned man could understand the difference.

So stuff your condescension and sense of self importance.

If you want "proof" to be the rules of engagement in this thread then take the time to support your statement instead of lazily and glibly asking your opponent to take the time and energy to do the research to prove their position that you are not willing to take yourself.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

Just... _wow_.

FIrst: I don't recall ever stating that the CBC is "fair & balanced" (nor would I dare to use a trademarked term of the Faux News Network in any case). 

Second: critics of the CBC in this forum have made the assertion on many, many occasions. I'm simply asking for an example.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

CubaMark said:


> Just... _wow_.
> 
> FIrst: *I don't recall ever stating that the CBC is "fair & balanced*" (nor would I dare to use a trademarked term of the Faux News Network in any case).
> 
> Second: critics of the CBC in this forum have made the assertion on many, many occasions. I'm simply asking for an example.


Perhaps not in this thread but your proclivities are well known... so this is not your position?

So, not asking you to prove a negative just what exactly is your position when it comes to the CBC?

Not asking for proof just a position of belief. Is that asking too much?


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

I'm beginning to see that the critics have nothing. Or they would happily be showing something.

Granted, like say the national post, certain personalities may show a bias, but I have yet to anyone here make a credible arguement that supports the blanket statement that the CBC is left biased.

Prove it.


----------



## partsguy (Jul 24, 2012)

Or maybe the critics are too busy watching the hockey games.

You guys slay me.


----------



## chimo (Jun 9, 2008)

bryanc said:


> I don't think an advertiser-funded model works well for a public broadcaster; if you're primary function is to serve the public interest, you can't be beholding to private interests (advertisers). The current situation is a bizarre hybrid of public and private funding that I agree does not work well, but it has emerged from historical constraints that we cannot undo.


You've hit the nail on the head here. I fully agree. 



The role of the CBC is also to support Canadian arts and culture. The nature of that industry usually rests significantly to the left. When taken as a whole, this may sway the overall perception of CBC being farther left than it actually is with respect to the news. I think the CBC slagged the previous governments just as well as the current one. I think their news coverage is fair and balanced enough to be considered in the centre. YMMV


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

chimo said:


> You've hit the nail on the head here. I fully agree.
> 
> 
> 
> The role of the CBC is also to support Canadian arts and culture. The nature of that industry usually rests significantly to the left. When taken as a whole, this may sway the overall perception of CBC being farther left than it actually is with respect to the news. I think the CBC slagged the previous governments just as well as the current one. I think their news coverage is fair and balanced enough to be considered in the centre. YMMV


very well put.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

screature said:


> Perhaps not in this thread but your proclivities are well known... so this is not your position?
> 
> So, not asking you to prove a negative just what exactly is your position when it comes to the CBC?
> 
> Not asking for proof just a position of belief. Is that asking too much?


I can say that on a number of occasions, on specific issues, the CBC coverage of those issues has been inadequate... as in far too centrist, not "left" enough.

I should drop the caveat that my exposure to CBC these days is primarily via textual, via CBC news on the web. I rarely have the opportunity, for example, to check out The National or other programming - they don't carry that stuff on Mexican cable 

That said... y'all are still prevaricating...


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Common CM and gt you can't expect some screaming memees to actually produce some evidence, some exemplars or even a single fact can you?.

You realize the screaming the correctness of their position, repeat, screaming the correctness of their position and repeat...is a full time activity don't you?

Don't you know it is your duty to do the research to their satisfaction and keep your self busy providing proof that shall always be dismissed as piffle?

Please leave them alone, so they may wander off in the smugness of their self anointed moral superiority. 

You know you fellows are asking for Mission Impossible. Well Mission Impossible without any action scenes.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

BigDL said:


> Common CM and gt you can't expect some screaming memees to actually produce some evidence, some exemplars or even a single fact can you?.
> 
> You realize the screaming the correctness of their position, repeat, screaming the correctness of their position and repeat...is a full time activity don't you?
> 
> ...


no it doesn't surprise me, this isn't the first time, nor will it be the last.

I can always hope a proper discussion will happen. One can only hope that you can do so with fred flinstone yelling at you, or barney rubble mumbling something snide, without anything to do with the topic often, or a flash mob who thinks that just repeating something, or a link over and over will suffice as "final answer".

bleh.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

OK I'll bite. 
Simple logic would dictate that its pretty stupid to insist a network is giving equal coverage to all sides of the social spectrum when only fellow Lefties agree with you and nobody leaning Right thinks so. I'd chalk this obfuscation up to mere survival instincts since you're beloved CBC needs the cash of people on the right to keep it going. 

Now we all know how much the media likes a sensational story. All media left and right do.
I'll take two and we'll see how CBC handled them.

First is *Bishop Lahey*.








I don't need to tell CBC fans about this story because you've enjoyed blanket coverage of it from day one with cover story after cover story. In case you've been living under a rock, the Bishop's crime was coming into Canada with gay child porn on his laptop.
Of course its well know that lefties hate Catholics and the Christianity in general so a good ass kicking of anything related to Catholicism is good fun and it helps further the cause of turning people off of religion. As a person on the right I don't want this story ignored either but as I'll demonstrate, its not being covered with an ounce of balance.

A search of the CBCnews.ca website with the term "bishop Lahey" yeilded a whopping* 357 news stories* 

Next search is *"Kermit Gosnell"*









Briefly, Gosnell originally faced eight total murder counts — one for killing a woman in a botched abortion and seven for killing babies in abortion-infanticides that involved live-birth abortions and snipping their necks after birth. The conduct of this doctor and the conditions of his facility have been described as a "shop of horrors". A sensational story to say the least.
If you watch CBC you likely don't know much if anything about this crime because the lefties there have been busy ignoring the horrific details of this story hoping it will all just go away. It really shines a bad light on the Lefties staunch support for baby killing so keeping its horrors from the public serves the greater "good". 
Search results for Kermit Gosnell: *1 news story, not even written by a CBC reporter but reposted from AP no less.*

The first commentor on this story nailed it.



> I am fascinated by the fact that this story went directly from the "Breaking News" scroller, to being buried near the bottom of the "World News" section.
> 
> If this were a story about an "ultra right wing radical" killing an abortion doctor, it would be front page news for days, followed by TV specials, calls for a House and/or Senate committee, and would eventually be blamed on the right wing media, and/or evangelical fanatics under the influence of Stephen Harper.
> 
> When did the CBC stop trying to at least pretend they were an impartial deliverer of the news, and become the propagandized arm of the radical left?


But CBC is not alone in this media coverup. Its barely getting ink in the US outside of Right leaning media sources and bloggers. In fact the coverup of this story has become news itself.

Now if you want to continue in your delusion that CBC is balanced then have at it.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

chimo said:


> The role of the CBC is also to support Canadian arts and culture. The nature of that industry usually rests significantly to the left. When taken as a whole, this may sway the overall perception of CBC being farther left than it actually is with respect to the news.


Because they need to cover the arts, it's OK for their news coverage to skew heavily left? This takes the cake for a lapse in logic.

I will add that I don't believe that the bias comes as a direct order from the top echelons of the CBC. The problem is that those who produce the news and commentary are so immersed in their left-leaning mindset and spend so much time inside their own leftist echo chamber, that they are almost completely incapable of imagining another world view.

The "independence" of the CBC in sucking on the government teat, is simply the independence it needs to skew left on any subject and then protect itself from the market forces that would surely sink it for such coverage.

I would most certainly include the CBC "Vote Compass" of 2011 as evidence of its Liberal bias. The online tool identified almost all users as Liberal supporters--even staunch conservatives.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

I remember the Lahey story very well... it was news in Canada because he is a Canadian and it directly affected Canadians. People who had children in the Catholic school system / were likely to have been in some way touched by the crime. It also was one within a seemingly unending parade of Catholic priest abuse of children stories, particularly on the east coast (the Christian Brothers / Mount Cashel scandal). Ongoing lawsuits by now-adult victims of Catholic priest abuse of children also keep that particular topic high on our news radar.

As for Kermit Gosnell - never heard of him. And not because I'm any kid of slave to CBC news coverage (it's one of dozens of news sources I consult daily). It's a local Philadelphia news item, and really only gets any prominence because of the right-wing press's obsession with all things to do with abortion (note that he has not yet been convicted of murdering babies).

In this case, I'll give you a _regional_ bias to CBC, but perfectly understandable. Care to try again?


----------



## iMouse (Mar 1, 2008)

I believe the saying is "Care to spin again?", with Vanna clapping in the background.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

CubaMark said:


> I remember the Lahey story very well... it was news in Canada because he is a Canadian and it directly affected Canadians. People who had children in the Catholic school system / were likely to have been in some way touched by the crime. It also was one within a seemingly unending parade of Catholic priest abuse of children stories, particularly on the east coast (the Christian Brothers / Mount Cashel scandal). Ongoing lawsuits by now-adult victims of Catholic priest abuse of children also keep that particular topic high on our news radar.
> 
> As for Kermit Gosnell - never heard of him. And not because I'm any kid of slave to CBC news coverage (it's one of dozens of news sources I consult daily). It's a local Philadelphia news item, and really only gets any prominence because of the right-wing press's obsession with all things to do with abortion (note that he has not yet been convicted of murdering babies).
> 
> In this case, I'll give you a _regional_ bias to CBC, but perfectly understandable. Care to try again?


Thank you for making my point.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I also recall the CBC's efforts to deflect criticism on its leftist bias by hiring conducting a survey into its own operations, covering 6,000 news stories on radio, 7,500 stories on television, and 2,400 stories on the Internet:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/pdf/news-balance-engexecsumm-oct1b.pdf

Instead of answering its critics, the CBC chose instead to concentrate on the "gender of anchors and program hosts" and "Canadian locations in network news on radio, television and Internet."


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Years ago when the CBC dominated major sports, I attended the Brier which was held in Red Deer. TSN was the poor kid on the block then, but they did get the rights to televise the Brier games from beginning weekend, right up until Thursday, when they then had to bow to the all mighty CBC who would carry the Brier playoffs on Friday, Saturday and Sunday. The CBC showed up with their complete technical and on air crew of 43 persons to broadcast that weekend. TSN had covered the preceding seven days with a complete crew of 16.

That type of overkill was then, and likely is now, still the norm in the bloated beast that is the CBC. When most of that staff are left leaning union types, their political preferences have leaked into the fabric of the corporation for many years now.


----------



## chimo (Jun 9, 2008)

Macfury said:


> Because they need to cover the arts, it's OK for their news coverage to skew heavily left? This takes the cake for a lapse in logic.


You either skimmed what I wrote too quickly, didn't comprehend what I wrote or you are choosing to try and twist my words. Go back and carefully read what I wrote. 

I do not believe their news coverage skews heavily left. That is your opinion when looking from the far right.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

chimo said:


> You either skimmed what I wrote too quickly, didn't comprehend what I wrote or you are choosing to try and twist my words. Go back and carefully read what I wrote.
> 
> I do not believe their news coverage skews heavily left. That is your opinion when looking from the far right.


I should have formed it as a series of questions. My apologies for coming on too strong. You're saying that people are confusing the CBC's arts coverage with its news coverage in their overall impression of the CBC?

And I will reiterate that the CBC's left bias isn't particularly in the way in which they cover the Liberal and Conservative parties--although the difference is obvious. It is a philosophical tone that imbues all of their coverage.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Someone tweeted this, a well known right wing blogger. Total. Faceplant. But of course, it doesn't differ from much of the lies, misinformation and just pure bile I see hurled from the right about the CBC in general.

Things You'll Never See On The CBC - Small Dead Animals

The comments, are just as I see here. But note the last 2 comments afterwards.

heh heh.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

MacGuiver said:


> OK I'll bite.
> Simple logic would dictate that its pretty stupid to insist a network is giving equal coverage to all sides of the social spectrum when only fellow Lefties agree with you and nobody leaning Right thinks so. I'd chalk this obfuscation up to mere survival instincts since you're beloved CBC needs the cash of people on the right to keep it going.
> 
> Now we all know how much the media likes a sensational story. All media left and right do.
> ...


Nice Job! Implying the correctness of your position without all of the facts. Selective at best.

Now it seems you should have read the 357 news stories from the CBCnews.ca website to provide the full story of Bishop Lahey, no doubt about that.

It would seem you left very many details as why Bishop Lahey had his name linked to 357 stories. Some of those stories had the information that you outlined.

Many more of those stories would not have anything information regarding his problems arising from international travel. 

Most of those stories from CBC Regional (Sydney and Halifax N.S.) would have contained information of when the good Bishop presided over the disposal of grievances of a sexual abuse nature against (other Priests from) the Diocese of Antigonish (N.S.) long before he left Antigonish for Ottawa and his troubles as you outlined.

Many of the stories also will contain the reference to the story you outlined and to the irony (hypocrisy) of his involvement with a pedophile sexual abuse settlement for the Diocese of Antigonish.

I guess the right have all caught the "Faux News style" of making a point.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

BigDL said:


> Nice Job! Implying the correctness of your position without all of the facts. Selective at best.
> 
> Now it seems you should have read the 357 news stories from the CBCnews.ca website to provide the full story of Bishop Lahey, no doubt about that.
> 
> ...


Granted not all are pertaining to his laptop full of boy porn but the bulk of them were. Lets just say they left no stone unturned.

But where are the stories on Gosnell? Nothing but crickets. A media outlet aiming to be unbiased would have run that story extensively for several reasons.
1. Its important to a good majority of people on the right that support the prolife cause and even some on the left.
2. It should be important to people on the left the self anointed champions of women's health to be aware of the abuse of women, the conduct and conditions existing at a facility under the watchful eye of the state.
3. Gosnell is accused of snipping spines of babies born alive after attempted abortions failed but those same failures occur in Canada and many are left to die unaided in our own medical system. This issue shouldn't be ignored.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

That's funny. I googled the news story and got a hit on CBC.

Abortion doctor faces 8 murder charges - World - CBC News


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

groovetube said:


> That's funny. I googled the news story and got a hit on CBC.
> 
> Abortion doctor faces 8 murder charges - World - CBC News


As I said, searching "Kermit Gosnell" did bring up 1 story on it when the story broke according to my search of CBC.ca and you just found it. Not a word about the trial.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

I'm sure the CBC doesn't report on every world news item as they progress.

I know that with your beliefs you might expect them to follow a news that is your particular interest, but they just don't have the resources to follow every world news item.

But the other news sites aren't much better, an initial story like the cbc, and a couple have just recently posted a story just in the last few weeks.

And that's merely online. Has it been on CBC news radio or tv?

I hardly think this is some kind of left wing conspiracy. Please hold the line while they watch as the trial unfolds and may report on something soon about a trial in another country.


----------



## chimo (Jun 9, 2008)

Macfury said:


> I should have formed it as a series of questions. My apologies for coming on too strong. You're saying that people are confusing the CBC's arts coverage with its news coverage in their overall impression of the CBC?
> 
> And I will reiterate that the CBC's left bias isn't particularly in the way in which they cover the Liberal and Conservative parties--although the difference is obvious. It is a philosophical tone that imbues all of their coverage.


What I was saying (or trying to say) is that when aggregated over the whole of their programming (both radio and TV), the overall slant is left. I just personally feel that the news component is still near the centre.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

*Stephen Harper Appoints Himself Head of CBC Television Programming*



riotwire said:


> *Turns out that all Stephen Harper ever wanted was a shot at cultural programming on the nation’s airwaves. Jerky LeBoeuf brings us this special sneak preview of the new, CPC-commissioned, CBC TV lineup.*












*CBC TV's New Lineup*


----------



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

BigDL said:


> *CBC TV's New Lineup*


:lmao::clap::lmao: Great shows ................ for some.


----------



## iMouse (Mar 1, 2008)

I might even have to start watching TV again.

The horror, the horror.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Ah yes, THAT oh so credible web site again.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

SINC said:


> Ah yes, THAT oh so credible web site again.


It's OK Don! We realize you're ironically and satirically challenged.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

> Riotwire is your hub for political mockery and comedic commentary. We bring you the best satire from around the web, as well as produce original and hilarious columns, cartoons, and video.


ouch.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

SINC said:


> Ah yes, THAT oh so credible web site again.


I think one major marker for the decline of the left is the drop in sophistication of its political humour.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

CubaMark said:


> Just for fun... any of you CBC critics want to post the transcript of a CBC report on topic (x) and give a critical dissection? I'd like to see what this "liberal bias" means to you...


Well CM, as it turns out, this pretty much proves the CBC's ongoing bias:




screature said:


> Irving hits back over CBC Arctic patrol ship story
> iPolotics
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

SINC, this doesn't appear to be a deliberate distortion of reality à la Faux News: In the original story, CBC notes that it did ask for an explanation of the cost, and neither the government minister (Ambrose) nor her office could provide the breakdown / explanation. Due diligence was performed.

The CBC has updated the story on their website in response to Irving's ad:

*Irving responds with ad*

Following the broadcast of this story, both the federal department of Public Works and Irving Shipbuilding objected to it. The government called it "misinformation" and Irving, in a newspaper advertisement, called it "inaccurate."

However, neither Irving nor the government denied that Canada is, indeed, paying far more to design its patrol ships than other countries pay to build them. Equally, neither explained why this is so.

Nevertheless, Irving did claim that its contract to design the ships is not a "design contract" but a "definition contract" including some items which are not strictly "design."

The government, however, agreed that 70% of the contract is, indeed, design. As the government announced on March 7th, "with this contract, Irving Shipbuilding Inc. will refine and complete the Arctic/Offshore patrol ships design to production level prior to construction in 2015."

Neither the government nor Irving claimed that the non-design items would change the fact that Canada's design bill alone is much higher than the price paid by other countries to put completed ships in the water.

Irving did not place any value on these non-design items, but said they include "engineering and detailed 3D electronic modelling."

Its advertisement did not say why this would not qualify as normal design work in the shipbuilding industry. It also noted that the contract includes HST.

Irving's ad says, though, that the contract also includes "down payments on major equipment items like radar and engines that must be ordered well in advance."

CBC News took these fully into account, and the amounts do not alter the conclusion that Canada is paying far more for the design work alone than other countries pay to build similar ships.

Asked to provide figures to contradict this, the department of Public Works did not do so either before or after the broadcast.

Irving also says the contract includes construction of "a large section of the first ship to test the design."

That, too, was also known and taken into account by CBC News, after discussion with Public Works officials, who described the test module as "optional" and were unsure of its cost.

Experts consulted by CBC estimated it at $5 – $10 million.

Public Works officials would not provide the cost, or an estimate.

But they suggested $10 million was not an unreasonable amount for what they termed a "test" production module, to "test" Irving's shipyard.

"We haven't yet negotiated that cost," an official told CBC News.​


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

CM, it is entirely deliberate when you don't finish the story. To publish it without Irving's input is the bias. It is a lot harder to undo something after they broadcast it as fact and the CBC knows it. Au contraire, it is a clear sample of their bias and manipulation of the real story to make the Cons look bad. Trouble is, they have now done that to themselves and given Canadians one more reason not to trust them.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

{edit: better stated by CM below}


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*(Should we move all follow-ups to the thread dedicated to this issue, or continue here in Canadian politics? The moderators have seem fit to leave this as two independent threads....)*



SINC said:


> CM, it is entirely deliberate when you don't finish the story. To publish it without Irving's input is the bias. It is a lot harder to undo something after they broadcast it as fact and the CBC knows it. Au contraire, it is a clear sample of their bias and manipulation of the real story to make the Cons look bad. Trouble is, they have now done that to themselves and given Canadians one more reason not to trust them.


I respectfully disagree. This story arose from a press conference of the contract announcement on March 7th, and follow-up interviews with Ambrose and her department officials subsequently. Miliewsky went to the minister and department who announced the contract and were *unable (or unwilling) to explain why the costs of this phase of the contract were so high* compared to other contracts (the CBC is standing by their assessment post-Irving ad, with an admission from the government that the majority of that contract (70%) is _design_, and above the norm.

IF Miliewsky had gone to Irving, and Irving had provided the same information they put into their advert, the questions would remain.

With all due respect, I suggest that it is the bias of critics of the CBC who are expecting the reporter to go to Irving for clarification, when the Minister of Public Works should have been able to answer the simple question of why the contract is so much more expensive than what appears to be the norm. This makes you appear to be apologists for the Conservatives. Frankly, for those who are opposed to government waste, one would think that you fellas would be a wee bit more upset with Ambrose / Public Works / Harper.

If I have concerns about a particular minister's travel expenses, I don't go to Air Canada asking why the tickets cost so much. I go to the minister and ask him/her where the money went. How is this different?


----------



## heavyall (Nov 2, 2012)

"Couldn't be reached for comment" is CBC code for "that side of the story will ruin the narrative we've decided to take, so we're leaving it out".


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

yeah no news source has ever done that.

[/sarcasm]


----------



## heavyall (Nov 2, 2012)

groovetube said:


> yeah no news source has ever done that.
> 
> [/sarcasm]


I didn't say that. They all do it. The omissions are the often most obvious indicator of a given bias.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

heavyall said:


> I didn't say that. They all do it. The omissions are the often most obvious indicator of a given bias.


perhaps for the paranoid. But for the rest of us the reasons are often ones such as the ones given above.

But it's all in how you wish to frame it.


----------



## heavyall (Nov 2, 2012)

groovetube said:


> perhaps for the paranoid. But for the rest of us the reasons are often ones such as the ones given above.
> 
> But it's all in how you wish to frame it.


Not for the paranoid, for the INTELLIGENT. I wish to frame it with reality, not some leftward fantasy world.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

heavyall said:


> "Couldn't be reached for comment" is CBC code for "that side of the story will ruin the narrative we've decided to take, so we're leaving it out".





heavyall said:


> I didn't say that. They all do it. The omissions are the often most obvious indicator of a given bias.





heavyall said:


> Not for the paranoid, for the INTELLIGENT. I wish to frame it with reality, not some leftward fantasy world.


We've had a weekend and Monday's Question Period in Parliament. 

Hey heavyall where is the information that was not reported? 

Where is the explanation of why a real world version of a Norwegian designed and built ship that is in the water and operating for a total cost of 100 Million Dollars cost so much more to build in Canada? 

OGL's Conservative government signed a contract in the amount of 288 Million Dollars for blue prints, a3d computer model, test production model and some down payment to book equipment (not full cost of radar and engines). With not one floaty ships.

Maybe I missed something so please point me to the information of why these ships cost so much more than the Norwegian ship that the Canadian ships are designed on?


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*CBC to cut 657 jobs, will no longer compete for professional sports rights*










Funding shortfalls and revenue losses have forced CBC/Radio-Canada to cut $130 million from its budget this year, a move that will eliminate 657 jobs over the next two years and take the network out of competing for the rights to broadcast professional sports, the public broadcaster says.

"Very tough and controversial choices needed to be made and were made," CBC president and CEO Hubert T. Lacroix said at a townhall meeting with staff Thursday.

Lacroix said CBC could no longer compete against private broadcasters that have specialty sports channels and multiple media platforms. The result will mean "substantially reducing" the size of the sports department and covering fewer sporting events, including amateur sports. But the CBC will still compete for sporting events of national significance, like the Olympics.

The CBC has already seen two major rounds of cuts in recent years, including at the CBC Broadcast Centre in Toronto.

Among the cuts, English Services will slash $82 million from its budget and eliminate 334 full-time jobs.

(CBC)


----------



## heavyall (Nov 2, 2012)

CubaMark said:


> *CBC to cut 657 jobs, will no longer compete for professional sports rights*


Good news! Hopefully that means we might actually be seeing the beginning of the end for the CBC. I'm not holding my breath though, Harper's already increased funding to them a couple of times, much to the dismay of his supporters. I wouldn't put it past him to give in again.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

The job will not be complete until every last taxpayer dime is withdrawn from the CBC and it is left to sink or swim on its own merit. But this is another step in that long overdue process and it cannot happen soon enough.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Hell, yes!


----------



## macintosh doctor (Mar 23, 2009)

SINC said:


> The job will not be complete until every last taxpayer dime is withdrawn from the CBC and it is left to sink or swim on its own merit. But this is another step in that long overdue process and it cannot happen soon enough.


completely agree... I hope the fat sucking bastards learn what it actually means to work for a living..


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

The simple math shows that to be ~$200,000/job. While there's probably more to it than that, still...

Oh, yay, BTW...


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

macintosh doctor said:


> completely agree... I hope the fat sucking bastards learn what it actually means to work for a living..


I feel for the *real middle class* people who work at CBC who are losing their jobs. I really do. They will have to go on EI and cash out some their RRSPs while they find new work... if they can.

For the execs, who undoubtedly won't be affected that much because they are already millionaires, not so much.

This is nothing new though it is the same old same old when it comes to corporate cuts.

But some people are still going to blame the government because that is what they are paid to do... It is a complete sham.

If the CBC produced (television) that people want to watch, they wouldn't be in this position.

Instead they keep producing shows like Little Mosque on the Prairie which panders to the "politically correct" but has very little popular appeal.

The CBC has no one to blame but themselves for these job losses and those that want to blame the government for their failure are completely misguided and live in a bubble of a long gone era.

The CBC mandate has not been adhered to for decades now... Perhaps this will be a wake up call and they will begin to do what they are mandated to do by legislation.

They are a Crown Corp and by legislation they are supposed to be self sustaining, yet they have continued to receive 1 billion dollars per year of government funding (a little less in very recent years).

It is time they woke up and formed a different business model.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

screature said:


> I feel for the *real middle class* people who work at CBC who are losing their jobs. I really do. They will have to go on EI and cash out some their RRSPs while they find new work... if they can.


I'm sorry, but this is what many people have had to do years ago--and part of the money realized by cashing RRSPs was funneled back to prop up this rotten house of cards. Reality has simply caught up with them.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Macfury said:


> I'm sorry, but this is what many people have had to do years ago--and part of the money realized by cashing RRSPs was funneled back to prop up this rotten house of cards. Reality has simply caught up with them.


MF I had to do it when the company I worked for literally went south (USA) and I lost my job in 2006. I had to cash out *ALL *of my RRSP's just to survive until I got another job, so YES I do have empathy for the common working person at the CBC who is losing their job.

You don't need to be so fundamentalist all the time. There are common people who work at the CBC who don't have huge salaries and gold plated pensions.

Those are the people who I have sympathy for and empathy with... your post really shows a decided lack of empathy for people who are just hard working slobs like the rest of us even though they work for the CBC.

I think you need to read my post again.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I don't need to read your post again, screature. There is no real middle class at the CBC.



> CBC employees earn on average 39% more than the average Canadian, according to information obtained through access to information from the state broadcaster.


CBC staff well paid by you | Canada | News | Toronto Sun

Do you think you're alone in having to cash out all your RRSPs? Yes, I get it--ALL of them. That's been private sector reality for many people for years.

I have empathy for anyone who loses a job, but not for the CBC itself. It was wrong that they were given the authority to hire these people in the first place--at salary and benefit levels far above the private sector. 




screature said:


> MF I had to do it when my the company I worked for literally went south (USA) and lost my job in 2007. I had to cash out *ALL *of my RRSP's just to survive until I got another job, so YES I do have empathy for the common working person at the CBC who is losing their job.
> 
> You don't need to be so fundamentalist all the time. There are common people who work at the CBC who don't have huge salaries and gold plated pensions.
> 
> ...


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

> Full-time employees at CBC earned an average of *Full-time employees at CBC earned an average of $55,712 in 2007, compared to an annual income of $40,092 for employed Canadians - meaning CBC employees were paid 39% more than the average Canadian.* in 2007, compared to an annual income of $40,092 for employed Canadians - meaning CBC employees were paid 39% more than the average Canadian.


The article is full of holes. It does not indicate how many family members that $55,712 has to support. All we know is the salary of the "average" employee, meaning that others make far, far much more while others make far, far much less.

Knowing that executives and "talent" make much, much more we can easily deduce that the "average" salary is not the *median* salary which is where the truth lies.

I know this... I make roughly $50K/year and my wife has made at the top of her earnings about the same (due to the nature of her work her income varies quite a bit from year to year). We don't live an opulent life style or live in a big home by any stretch of the imagination and we have no kids.

The "average income" that the Sun reported is not a mathematical/statistical analysis of what it means to be "middle class" not by a long shot.

Personally from real life experience I know that even with my wife and my combined salaries we are about in the middle of the "middle class" and are constantly teetering on the edge of being in the middle class depending on our employment situation.

So yes I do have empathy for some of those who are losing their jobs at the CBC.

They are not all "fat cats" not by a long shot.

You can be rest assured it is not the "fat cats" who are losing their jobs.

I understand you don't like the CBC, I am not that fond of them either, but don't let your bias blind you to the realities that some of these people who are losing their jobs are going to face.

Some of them are going to face very tough times indeed and I see nothing wrong in feeling/expressing empathy for them.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

screature, that's a bit disingenuous. It doesn't matter how many people the CBC workers choose to have in their families. What matters is the salary they are paid. 

Again, I never believed it was only the fat cats who are losing their jobs and I am not taking delight in the hardships of people losing their jobs. However, I don't like being forced to cover the salaries of people who perform a task that is meaningless to me. At this point, I am simply happy to see the CBC gobbling up less money.





screature said:


> The article is full of holes. It does not indicate how many family members that $55,712 has to support. All we know is the salary of the "average" employee, meaning that others make far, far much more while others make far, far much less.
> 
> The "average income" that the Sun reported is not a mathematical/statistical analysis of what it means to be "middle class" not by a long shot.
> 
> ...


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Macfury said:


> screature,* that's a bit disingenuous.* It doesn't matter how many people the CBC workers choose to have in their families. What matters is the salary they are paid.
> 
> Again, I never believed it was only the fat cats who are losing their jobs and I am not taking delight in the hardships of people losing their jobs. However,* I don't like being forced to cover the salaries of people who perform a task that is meaningless to me*. At this point, I am simply happy to see the CBC gobbling up less money.


MF there is absolutely nothing disingenuous in what I said based on the information that I have available to me... just for clarification:

disingenuous |ˌdisinˈjenyoōəs|
adjective
not candid or sincere, typically by pretending that one knows less about something than one really does.

I take exception to that as I meant every word I stated.

You quoted a Sun article that was "disingenuous" becuase the "average" salary of CBC employees does not begin to tell the whole truth. The median salary is what tells the real truth.

Do you know something I don't? I mean the question seriously. Like a weather man I could always be wrong... and more often than I like to admit.

I am sure you know that there are multitudes of other government programs and policies that have nothing to do with you/meaningless to you and others that do benefit you, however it isn't all about all about you or me...

That was in fact part of Jim Flaherty's legacy, he cared about the greater good.

I see that you are intransigent on the matter so we shall have to just agree to disagree.

Peace out.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

What I believe is disingenuous is that you introduced the idea that it mattered how many family members an overpaid CBC worker was supporting. Since we are comparing it to the average wage of a private sector worker, we can ascribe the same number of potential family members to that much lower salary. It isn't something that applies only to CBC workers.

Here's the CRTC's _average_ salary figures for the CBC: $93,000.

Canadian Media Research: May 2012

Calling on the "greater good" is not going to go far with me. Too many dreadful and dangerous ideas have been sold on that concept. Tossing the CBC into that pot shows how the concept can be horribly misapplied.



screature said:


> MF there is absolutely nothing disingenuous in what I said based on the information that I have available to me... just for clarification:
> 
> disingenuous |ˌdisinˈjenyoōəs|
> adjective
> ...


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)




----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

It takes a liberal cartoonist to assume that the entertainment landscape is divided between quality programming from the CBC and junk. More accurately, its lots of junk from the CBC and everyone else, with a few notable exceptions. This budget cut will encourage CBC to drop its junk programming.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Macfury said:


> It takes a liberal cartoonist to assume that the entertainment landscape is divided between quality programming from the CBC and junk. More accurately, its lots of junk from the CBC and everyone else, with a few notable exceptions. This budget cut will encourage CBC to drop its junk programming.


By CBC's own admission the cuts are because of lack of viewership.

It reminds me of the saying from the movie "Field of Dreams", "Build it and they will come".

CBC TV needs very much to take this statement and sentiment to heart.

On the other hand CBC Radio is a different matter. CBC 1 and CBC 2 are consistently almost the only radio channels I listen to, they do a great job. In the Ottawa region CBC1 has consistently been the most listened to radio channel for years.

Maybe the TV folks should talk to their radio counterparts for tips on how to do it right.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

screature said:


> By CBC's own admission the cuts are because of lack of viewership.
> 
> It reminds me of the saying from the movie "Field of Dreams", "Build it and they will come".
> 
> ...


I agree that they need to concentrate on building an audience instead of pandering to splinter audience groups. I have literally not watched one minute of CBC programming or listened to one minute of CBC radio in roughly two years. Possibly, it totals an hour in the five-year period prior to that.

CBC TV still has a lot to answer for by crushing the development of a Canadian TV industry in the 1940s by ensuring that no television licenses were granted while the US was building a robust television presence. They should make it up to the Canadian people by producing some programming that appeals to them

I still don't see why the CBC should be competing for the rights to broadcast expensive sporing events. Let them cover sporting events of national importance that private broadcasters won't touch.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Macfury said:


> I agree that they need to concentrate on building an audience instead of pandering to splinter audience groups. I have literally not watched one minute of CBC programming *or listened to one minute of CBC radio *in roughly two years. Possibly, it totals an hour in the five-year period prior to that.
> 
> CBC TV still has a lot to answer for by crushing the development of a Canadian TV industry in the 1940s by ensuring that no television licenses were granted while the US was building a robust television presence. They should make it up to the Canadian people by producing some programming that appeals to them
> 
> I still don't see why the CBC should be competing for the rights to broadcast expensive sporing events. Let them cover sporting events of national importance that private broadcasters won't touch.


Too bad, there is a lot of great programming on CBC 1. Just a few highlights: The Vinyl Cafe, Quirks and Quarks, DNTO, Rex Murphy, Randy Bachman's program, I could go on.

It is really quality radio, well above the norm.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

Canadian content has had a history of lacklustre production and bad acting but I've actually found a few shows lately that I like. The Vikings series I believe is a Canadian/Irish collaboration that aired on history channel last year. Its actually quite well done and I've been watching it since its debut. In fact when it first came out I wrongfully assumed it was American content since the production value was good. 
From CBC i actually find Mr' D pretty funny to watch. Not everyone's cup of tea but I find it quite comical. That said I watch it on netflix.
I think Canadians can certainly compete creatively with the US offerings. I think the Vikings series demonstrated that for me.
As far as the CBC goes however, I think they should be on the same playing field as any of the other networks sans billion $ subsidy.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

screature said:


> Too bad, there is a lot of great programming on CBC 1. Just a few highlights: The Vinyl Cafe, Quirks and Quarks, DNTO, Rex Murphy, Randy Bachman's program, I could go on.
> 
> It is really quality radio, well above the norm.


I have listened to bits of some of those programs years ago, but in most cases I listen to the radio in the car and nowhere else. They were OK, but not conducive to driving.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Macfury said:


> I have listened to bits of some of those programs years ago, but in most cases I listen to the radio in the car and nowhere else. They were OK, but not conducive to driving.


I guess you have Sirius. I don't, and I am confident there are many great programs available there...

But seeing as I do not have Sirius when compared to the rest of the radio stations available to me CBC1 and 2 are the only the real options for people of my age... At least IMO.

I enjoy their programming most/much of the time especially when driving.

I have actually sat in my car on different occasions after I have reached my destination just to finish hearing the end of one of the shows that I mentioned.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

I do not dispute that CBC radio is good. Sadly I do not have time for much radio and only listen to it when driving and more and more that is long hauls in the motor home, never around town as I only drive 4-5,000 km in a yr in the car.

The big problem is TV. There is where the bulk of the money goes on the crap, and that is the only accurate way to describe it, right down to the National which I never watch any more. I now rely on Global for most of my TV news with some CTV locally, but never nationally (can't stand that woman anchor).

If they shut down the TV network much of the waste would go away. With today's technology including satellite, there is no longer any need to claim only the CBC can reach the high arctic or whatever current excuse they are using.

And finally throw in the leftist agenda of CBC-TV News and that too would die a well deserved death.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

SINC said:


> I do not dispute that CBC radio is good. Sadly I do not have time for much radio and only listen to it when driving and more and more that is long hauls in the motor home, never around town as I only drive 4-5,000 km in a yr in the car.
> 
> The big problem is TV. There is where the bulk of the money goes on the crap, and that is the only accurate way to describe it, right down to the National which I never watch any more. I now rely on Global for most of my TV news with some CTV locally, but never nationally (can't stand that woman anchor).
> 
> ...


I think the elephant in the room is what is the role of the CBC in the 21st century, particularly when i comes to TV?

The CBC needs to figure it out and quickly.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

SINC said:


> And finally throw in the leftist agenda of CBC-TV News and that too would die a well deserved death.


Perspective is an interesting thing. For many of us on the "left", the CBC began its march to disaster - in terms of its news coverage, at any rate - when it began attempting to emulate its U.S. counterparts, and in what we viewed as a move to the "right".

As for CBC-TV programming in general... I also feel that it lost its way in many respects. But the budget cuts and the push to embrace advertising did the Corporation no favours. Seeking an audience in many respects is a race to the bottom of quality and the lowest-common-denominator viewers.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

CubaMark said:


> Perspective is an interesting thing. For many of us on the "left", the CBC began its march to disaster - in terms of its news coverage, at any rate - when it began attempting to emulate its U.S. counterparts, and in what we viewed as a move to the "right".
> 
> As for CBC-TV programming in general... I also feel that it lost its way in many respects. But the budget cuts and the push to embrace advertising did the Corporation no favours. Seeking an audience in many respects is a race to the bottom of quality and the lowest-common-denominator viewers.


US news has been moving left for years. The CBC has been on the same path. It's one of the reasons that news program viewership at both the CBC and US networks has been dropping precipitously.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

Macfury said:


> US news has been moving left for years. The CBC has been on the same path. It's one of the reasons that news program viewership at both the CBC and US networks has been dropping precipitously.


:lmao:

Just because Faux News has pushed the goalpost off into FAAAAAR Right Field, doesn't mean the rest of the media has moved Left.

Thanks for the belly laugh. Now if you'll excuse me, gotta go convince the kid to go back to sleep... at least he was awoken by laughter....


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

CubaMark said:


> :lmao:
> 
> Just because Faux News has pushed the goalpost off into FAAAAAR Right Field, doesn't mean the rest of the media has moved Left.
> 
> Thanks for the belly laugh. Now if you'll excuse me, gotta go convince the kid to go back to sleep... at least he was awoken by laughter....


Again, to someone as far left as yourself, any distinctions involve viewing the various news options sideways instead of head on. 

Since most of the news sources that have moved to the left are facing extreme financial hardships as a result of their editorial stance, you'll soon be joining the wee child in night-time tears.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

Macfury said:


> Again, to someone as far left as yourself, any distinctions involve viewing the various news options sideways instead of head on.


Funny how a few years shared trading jibes in an online forum leads one to think they know the other guy...

As for CBC cuts - some food for thought:

Consider This Before You Cheer CBC Cuts | D.K. Latta


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

There is no food for thought in that entire article. Just a grocery list of considerations that have no value to me at all. It's as if though this poor fool believes he has some ideas that those who applaud the CBC cuts have not already carefully considered.



CubaMark said:


> As for CBC cuts - some food for thought:
> 
> Consider This Before You Cheer CBC Cuts | D.K. Latta


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

I can't believe the CBC is even postulating this as means to get themselves out of their difficulties that are of their own making...

Cable bill hike to pay for CBC?



> ...The comments came during a town hall meeting last week where CBC president Hubert Lacroix was discussing plans for 657 job cuts and changes in the wake of CBC's loss of NHL hockey broadcasts.
> 
> During a question and answer session, Lacroix suggested a CBC tax similar to that in Britain. The BBC is funded through a fee on every television in Britain, and in Lacroix's mind that money should come from cable and satellite companies, known in the industry as BDUs.
> 
> "Imagine if in Canada the BDUs decided to give us three or four or five percent of whatever bottom line number and they committed to that over years, maybe that could be something," Lacroix said...


The private sector is supposed to subsidize their public sector competition?! What an absurd idea.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

That Lacroix can say that without any sense of shame, shows how far the entitlement mentality has progressed.

Thank goodeness the response was:



> Heritage Minister Shelly Glover's office threw cold water on the concept.
> 
> "The CBC already receives significant taxpayer funds. They can operate within their existing budget," Marisa Monnin said. "According to the CBC, it is declining viewership that is causing their challenges. It is up to the CBC to provide programming that Canadians actually want to watch."





screature said:


> I can't believe the CBC is even postulating this as means to get themselves out of their difficulties that are of their own making...
> 
> Cable bill hike to pay for CBC?
> 
> The private sector is supposed to subsidize their public sector competition?! What an absurd idea.



It's pretty difficult to make a case for your own relevance when nobody is watching your product.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

SINC, and the rest of you salivating over the destruction of the CBC... you should'a been careful what you wished for....

_CBC plans on cutting programs and services that many Canadians use and enjoy. *The "plan" is to transfer money from existing services, such as CBC Radio, and funnel dollars into some as yet to be determined programs* by 2020.

The president of CBC, Hubert Lacroix, made the announcement in a recent speech: "If we can't generate new revenues or our funding model doesn't change, we'll need to take existing dollars away from services we're currently offering, to pay for those we need to be offering in the future."_​
*The CBC Wants to Cancel Your Favourite Shows | Huffington Post*


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Well, no surpride that CBC brass would do this. They just don't get it and never have. Donkeys every one to put it nicely. Not smart enough to cut the crap no one watches is incredibly stupid.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

CubaMark said:


> SINC, and the rest of you salivating over the destruction of the CBC... you should'a been careful what you wished for....


I don't want it destroyed. I just don't want it publicly funded. Let the CBC survive on its own merit in a fair, open market. If it truly is what Canadians desire as far as content, there should be no issues.

Or is that the crux of the problem...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

CubaMark said:


> SINC, and the rest of you salivating over the destruction of the CBC... you should'a been careful what you wished for....
> 
> _CBC plans on cutting programs and services that many Canadians use and enjoy. *The "plan" is to transfer money from existing services, such as CBC Radio, and funnel dollars into some as yet to be determined programs* by 2020.
> 
> ...


This is just like public parks closing washrooms when someone cuts their budget by a penny. Plain bad theatre. 

This is not the result of budget cuts, this is the result of a sense of gross entitlement.


----------



## heavyall (Nov 2, 2012)

CubaMark said:


> Just because Faux News has pushed the goalpost off into FAAAAAR Right Field, doesn't mean the rest of the media has moved Left..


Fox isn't nearly as far right as they get accused of. They just appear to be in comparison to the other offerings because most of those have moved so far left.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

FeXL said:


> I don't want it destroyed. I just don't want it publicly funded.


CM understands that these concepts are synonymous.


----------



## Burloak (Jul 26, 2005)

*Just Asking*

We frequently watch CBC, TVO or PBS Buffalo and contribute funds to TVO and PBS regularly.

Does anyone know why there is no similar option for those of us who value the CBC to support it financially this way too?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Burloak said:


> We frequently watch CBC, TVO or PBS Buffalo and contribute funds to TVO and PBS regularly.
> 
> Does anyone know why there is no similar option for those of us who value the CBC to support it financially this way too?


Cut them a cheque and they will gladly spend it on executive perks.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Burloak said:


> We frequently watch CBC, TVO or PBS Buffalo and contribute funds to TVO and PBS regularly.
> 
> *Does anyone know why there is no similar option for those of us who value the CBC to support it financially this way too?*


Good question! 

I don't think there is anything in legislation that precludes it from happening.

Perhaps write to the CEO of CBC and ask him why they have not considered this kind of direct monetary support.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

‘I can’t see any conceivable way the anchor of a national news broadcast is only making $80,000 a year’

What a joke!!! It is completely ludicrous basically a lie that:



> Mansbridge’s maximum salary scale for 2013 is just under $80,500


all the while...



> ballpark figures for other high-profile radio and television hosts ranged from $60,000 to $77,390. At the same time, a media librarian and dozens of lesser-known reporters, producers and hosts, were listed with annual salaries in the $53,000 to $80,485.22 range, while some senior project managers received as much as $117,200 and $160,500 maximum for a director of advertising and branding.





> “I can’t see any conceivable way the anchor of a national news broadcast is only making $80,000 a year,” said an industry executive who asked not to be named. “The going rate for national anchors in Canada is a minimum of $500,000, but it’s much more than that. He couldn’t be working as long as he has at the CBC and still be making $80,000.”


I completely agree.

What the CBC reported to the Senate was a complete lie.

Both my sister and brother-in-law who work for the government at mid-management departmental levels are paid more than Peter Mansbridge (according to the CBC), so based on that alone, I know first hand it is a complete lie.

CBC president Hubert T. Lacroix and all other CBC execs should be called before a Parliamentary Committee to tell the truth replete with *actual* documentation.

This should be a priority of the Auditor General considering the level of *obvious * falsehoods being told by the CBC.

The stench of rot is unbearable.


----------



## heavyall (Nov 2, 2012)

> CBC president Hubert T. Lacroix and all other CBC execs should be called before a Parliamentary Committee to tell the truth replete with *actual* documentation.
> 
> This should be a priority of the Auditor General considering the level of *obvious * falsehoods being told by the CBC.
> 
> The stench of rot is unbearable.


"Called"? They need to be fired immediately.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

No wonder Lloyd Robertson defected to CTV.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

heavyall said:


> "Called"? They need to be fired immediately.


Everyone is entitled to due process, even when they work for the CBC.

Also, I am not exactly sure who could fire the President of the CBC, they are a Crown Corporation and are at arms length to Government.

Your post raises an interesting question that I don't have an answer to at my fingertips.

My suspicion is that it would be the Heritage Minister who is Shelly Glover, but I suspect that would be political dynamite and she would have to have much more grounds for his firing than just this.


----------

