# Shameful CBC Report Continues To Put 'Their' Spin On Issues



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

As usual the taxpayer funded leftist numbskulls at CBC cannot be objective in anything they report.

Instead the corporate spin shines through in even the headlines they produce while trying to manufacture another non-story.

Particularly against their often supposed foe, Alberta:

OK to hit women if angry, 8% of Alberta men say - Edmonton - CBC News

The sorry asses that run the CBC newsroom apparently have never heard of a headline reading "92 percent of Alberta men oppose hitting women".

Leftist, irresponsible pseudo-journalists who think their crap doesn't smell. Trouble is that anyone with half a brain can smell the CBC taint immediately. tptptptp


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Gee the CBC make me angry for being so far to the right. Kevin O'leary, Rex Murphy, Amanda Lang given free reign to spout their free market laissez faire Ideology. 

Don't get me started on that political panel on Thursday nights.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

BigDL said:


> Gee the CBC make me angry for being so far to the right. Kevin O'leary, Rex Murphy, Amanda Lang given free reign to spout their free market laissez faire Ideology.
> 
> Don't get me started on that political panel on Thursday nights.


Yeah, gotta agree they are almost as stupid as your sig, but not quite.


----------



## chimo (Jun 9, 2008)

The same story is also being run by Postmedia News. I read it in the National Post today. I don't think I would classify the National Post as left-wing.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

install a transmitter connect it to an antennae, and plug in a mic in front of someone with an opinion = someone get mad.

One thing that isn't really pointed out here, this isn't the cbc nationally telling everyone 8% of edmontonian men think it's ok to hit a woman, it's on the edmonton news page itself, not on the "Canada" page.

So this is cbc "Edmonton news".


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

SINC said:


> The sorry asses that run the CBC newsroom apparently have never heard of a headline reading "92 percent of Alberta men oppose hitting women".


Men opposing hitting women is not news. 

Man bites dog and all.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Sonal said:


> Man bites dog and all.


Where did this happen? Link?


----------



## Coriolis99 (Jun 20, 2011)

SINC said:


> As usual the taxpayer funded leftist numbskulls at CBC cannot be objective in anything they report.
> 
> Instead the corporate spin shines through in even the headlines they produce while trying to manufacture another non-story.
> 
> ...


CBC is pure garbage. 

If the study said 92% of women agreed it is Ok to hit men when angry, they would laud it as a great day in "equality"

Pure marxist propaganda. Mind control for the simpletons. Don't waste your time.


----------



## Coriolis99 (Jun 20, 2011)

BigDL said:


> Gee the CBC make me angry for being so far to the right. Kevin O'leary, Rex Murphy, Amanda Lang given free reign to spout their free market laissez faire Ideology.
> 
> Don't get me started on that political panel on Thursday nights.



I agree. I don't judge transvestites but they shouldn't be allowed on national TV. 

Chantal makes me upchuck my dinner sometimes. It's like she completely stopped trying.

Much better now that i stopped watching


----------



## crawford (Oct 8, 2005)

chimo said:


> The same story is also being run by Postmedia News. I read it in the National Post today. I don't think I would classify the National Post as left-wing.


If anything, I would call this lazy journalism, not leftist.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

SINC said:


> As usual the taxpayer funded leftist numbskulls at CBC cannot be objective in anything they report.
> 
> Instead the corporate spin shines through in even the headlines they produce while trying to manufacture another non-story.
> 
> ...


It seems like the rest of the news media are also taxpayer-funded, leftist numbskull, non-objective, irresponsible pseudo-journalist, sorry asses who think their crap doesn't smell also.

Headline in the Calgary Herald: Survey finds nearly 10% of Alberta men OK with assault

Headline on Canada.com representing a range of Canadian newspapers including the National Post: It's OK to hit a woman, says one in 10 Albertan men

Headline on CTV.ca: Survey suggests 1 in 10 men think it's OK to hit a woman | CTV

Headline on Global Edmonton's web site: Global Edmonton | It's OK to hit a woman, says one in 10 Alberta men

Headline on 660 News radio Calgary's web site: Some Alberta men okay with domestic violence - 660News

It seems that of all these news outlets CBC had the most accurate and objective headline, since they quoted the more exact figure of 8%. The Calgary Herald says "nearly 10%". Most of the others say 1 in 10, meaning 10%. Everyone else rounded 8% up to 10% making the story even more sensationalistic.

If you're saying that the fact that CBC didn't make it into a good news story by saying "92% of Alberta men oppose hitting women" and that this is evidence of their left-wing bias, well that makes no sense, since no other media outlet did that either. 

It's not at all surprising to anyone that most men oppose hitting women, the surprising thing here and the thing that makes it newsworthy is that a significant number of men still think it's OK to do this.

I think that the CBC in this instance comes out looking at least as objective as the other media and certainly more accurate with their headline. Where's the leftist taint?

With only half a brain I can immediately see there isn't any taint, and with my other half a brain I can see there is a whole lot of hyper-ventilating about nothing at all.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

I don't have a problem with the headline.

If research showed that 5% of alberta men killed someone, i wouldn't expect the headline to read "95% of alberta men have never killed someone", the story is that small percent is doing something absolutely unacceptable.

however i do agree that the article is poorly written. what's the national average? what's the global average? are Alberta men worse than the men of other provinces, and by how much? what was the exact question? was anger the only factor in their reaction to justification for hitting a woman, or would physical provocation along with anger be lumped together?

context would have been nice.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Coriolis99 said:


> I agree. I don't judge transvestites but they shouldn't be allowed on national TV.
> 
> Chantal makes me upchuck my dinner sometimes. It's like she completely stopped trying.
> 
> Much better now that i stopped watching


Who's the transvestite on national TV? I guess I missed that.

And what is it that you think Chantal has completely stopped trying?


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

i-rui said:


> however i do agree that the article is poorly written. what's the national average? what's the global average? are Alberta men worse than the men of other provinces, and by how much? what was the exact question? was anger the only factor in their reaction to justification for hitting a woman, or would physical provocation along with anger be lumped together?
> 
> context would have been nice.


This seems to be the curse of all news media nowadays. Unless they're writing a feature story it seems like something that can be read in under 2 minutes is the most you'll ever get. Everyone is afraid that the short-attention-span public will lose interest if something in-depth and challenging is presented.

On this story all the media who reported on it, published similarly short articles, leaving one with more questions than answers.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> This seems to be the curse of all news media nowadays. Unless they're writing a feature story it seems like something that can be read in under 2 minutes is the most you'll ever get. Everyone is afraid that the short-attention-span public will lose interest if something in-depth and challenging is presented.
> 
> On this story all the media who reported on it, published similarly short articles, leaving one with more questions than answers.


I think it must be a North American convention or invention. When I read stories from an rss feed from the BBC I have noticed the stories are longer and tend to provide more background information.

The issue with the story of Alberta men's attitude may have to do with the survey. 

Why was the survey done? Did someone commission it (which I should imagine is the case) or is it a random act of nosiness on the part of the pollster. Who wanted this information?

What was(were) the question(s) asked on the poll? 

I agree a very poorly written story with at least three "W" not provided.


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

Super thread. I love the comment about "Chantal". Glad it got under your skin and that the Post covered exactly the same story.

Gotta love HARPER supporters!


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

I was just thinking how great it is to be mind-controlled simpleton in this great country of ours. It's the reason I spring up out of bed each and every morning and think: _the things I can do today!_


----------



## dstanic (Feb 18, 2012)

They really gotta get rid of those idiots in their "political panel" and I agree Chantal looks like a tired old beast with nothing good to say. 

It's a shame Peter Mansbridge is stuck with that network now, people might really look up to him if on a non-biased station.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

watch out for the demonized fornicating in the streets leftist transvestite david suzuki arse smoochin soooSHulists who want to stop you from getting out of bed.

They're everywhere, even on the teevee.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> watch out for the demonized fornicating in the streets leftist transvestite david suzuki arse smoochin soooSHulists who want to stop you from getting out of bed.
> 
> They're everywhere, even on the teevee.


HA! Max knows how to tell one of these jokes--you don't!


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

and you're the judge?

pffft.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Yes, I'm the judge!


----------



## crawford (Oct 8, 2005)

BigDL said:


> Why was the survey done? Did someone commission it (which I should imagine is the case) or is it a random act of nosiness on the part of the pollster. Who wanted this information?


Your answer is in the very first sentence of the article. 



BigDL said:


> What was(were) the question(s) asked on the poll?


Also in that same lede: a link to the study. [PDF]


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

crawford said:


> Your answer is in the very first sentence of the article.
> 
> 
> 
> Also in that same lede: a link to the study. [PDF]


Yes I did miss the "who" but the "why" and the "question(s)" were absent from the story. Still poor journalism.


----------



## Rps (May 2, 2009)

I'm sorry I guess I am missing the point of this article.....is it that the CBC is biased ( for those of you who have not seen biased news please see Fox or in Canada Sun News, or is it that we should be shocked that between 8 and 10% of men in Alberta to think it is okay to hit women. I wonder what the per centage is that thinks it is okay to hit men, children, dogs whatever.

One's view of headline shock aside, any number who thinks violence is fine is a problem. Put another way, what if 1% of a given population thought it was fine to abuse children...sexual or otherwise.... Should our shock be at the headlines bias or that we have a segment of the population who believes certain acts are fine no matter what the majority of society believes.


----------



## chimo (Jun 9, 2008)

gratuitousapplesauce said:


> it seems like the rest of the news media are also taxpayer-funded, leftist numbskull, non-objective, irresponsible pseudo-journalist, sorry asses who think their crap doesn't smell also.
> 
> Headline in the calgary herald: survey finds nearly 10% of alberta men ok with assault
> 
> ...


+1


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Rps said:


> I'm sorry I guess I am missing the point of this article.....is it that the CBC is biased ( for those of you who have not seen biased news please see Fox or in Canada Sun News, or is it that we should be shocked that between 8 and 10% of men in Alberta to think it is okay to hit women. I wonder what the per centage is that thinks it is okay to hit men, children, dogs whatever.
> 
> One's view of headline shock aside, any number who thinks violence is fine is a problem. Put another way, what if 1% of a given population thought it was fine to abuse children...sexual or otherwise.... Should our shock be at the headlines bias or that we have a segment of the population who believes certain acts are fine no matter what the majority of society believes.


To be fair it could be as low as (5.5) 6 or as high as 10 (10.5) men. (+ or - 2.5% 19 times out of 20)


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

Another thread for Sinc to complain about the CBC. How refreshing.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I'd like to know hoe the figures compare to other provinces, but I don;t think the CBC is to blame here.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Yes, but it's turned into a nicely ironic display of how the CBC is actually as good or better than any other media outlet in Canada.

While I understand and appreciate the journalistic practice of trying to give both sides of any story equal coverage, sometimes that's just not truthful. When one side has all the facts and the vast majority of credible proponents, giving "both sides of the story" is a kind of bias. I think the CBC does a much better job of providing accurate coverage of Canadian news than any other media provider. They get accused of being "leftist" but that's just because reality has a well-know left-wing bias


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> I'd like to know hoe the figures compare to other provinces, but I don;t think the CBC is to blame here.


A quick glance reveals that Leger only looked at Alberta for this study.

Let us now assume bias for picking on Alberta.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> It seems that of all these news outlets CBC had the most accurate and objective headline, since they quoted the more exact figure of 8%. The Calgary Herald says "nearly 10%". Most of the others say 1 in 10, meaning 10%. Everyone else rounded 8% up to 10% making the story even more sensationalistic.





bryanc said:


> Yes, but it's turned into a nicely ironic display of how *the CBC is actually as good or better than any other media outlet in Canada.*


:clap:

Yes indeed. We need to thank SINC for his thoughtful illumination of this.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Ottawaman said:


> Another thread for Sinc to complain about the CBC. How refreshing.


:clap: where's that like button again.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Sonal said:


> A quick glance reveals that Leger only looked at Alberta for this study.
> 
> Let us now assume bias for picking on Alberta.


If we knew why the poll was taken, the reason provided may show there is not a bias at all. 

If the poll was commissioned to discover, say, base line information or to receive feed back from, say, an earlier awareness program(s) it would be quite logical to have information limited to specifically Alberta men.

Who knows, because, the story was poorly written. It may have been a poorly written press release passed along to the public.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

This thread is so quiet.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Very quiet ....


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

In the meantime...





+
YouTube Video









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


----------



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

mrjimmy said:


> In the meantime...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Now that brings back memories. :clap:

Merci, mon ami.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

mrjimmy said:


> This thread is so quiet.





GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Very quiet ....


Watch out! In old duster (cowboy) movies that was the plot point where some one was shot through the neck or in the heart. 

Be cautious be very cautious.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

mrjimmy said:


> In the meantime...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I hate Swiss design...


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Bam!


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

BigDL said:


> Watch out! In old duster (cowboy) movies that was the plot point where some one was shot through the neck or in the heart.
> 
> Be cautious be very cautious.


Nah. No one has real bullets here BigDL. They're all just shootin' blanks.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Macfury said:


> I hate Swiss design...


What a coincidence, Switzerland called, they don't think too much of you either.


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

Gee look at the spin on this CBC report -

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/03/15/pol-investigation-.html

Shameful!


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

Here we go 10% cut applied to the CBC. 

Not enough eh CON supporters!

http://m.theglobeandmail.com/news/p...-cuts-roll-out/article2391686/?service=mobile


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

jimbotelecom said:


> Here we go 10% cut applied to the CBC.


It's a start!


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

jimbotelecom said:


> Here we go 10% cut applied to the CBC.
> 
> Not enough eh CON supporters!
> 
> Politics - The Globe and Mail


Truth and accountability don't interest some Canadians JJ.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

jimbotelecom said:


> Here we go 10% cut applied to the CBC.
> 
> Not enough eh CON supporters!
> 
> Politics - The Globe and Mail


Add another 0 to that and I'd be elated but as Sinc says, 10% is a start.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I'm pretty happy with it!


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

mrjimmy said:


> Truth and accountability don't interest some Canadians JJ.


Indeed. That is exactly why millions of Canadians do not watch or trust the CBC nor its leftist agenda.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

yeah we all know how over 60% of the country dislikes the "leftist agenda"... :lmao:


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

SINC said:


> Indeed. That is exactly why millions of Canadians do not watch or trust the CBC nor its leftist agenda.


SINC, I'm surprised you've shown your face in this thread again after getting your rant about the mother corp. so wrong.

I could easily say that millions _do_ watch _and_ trust the CBC and it's centrist agenda but I'm not prone to such types of exaggeration.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

mrjimmy said:


> *I could easily say that millions do watch and trust the CBC and it's centrist agenda* but I'm not prone to such types of exaggeration.


Is that so? I could swear you just did exactly that. Oh, look, there it is in the quote right above this text.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

SINC said:


> Is that so? I could swear you just did exactly that. Oh, look, there it is in the quote right above this text.


Oh you got it, aren't you clever... :


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Clever enough to never trust CBC-TV news.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

SINC said:


> Clever enough to never trust CBC-TV news.


Funny, you should re-read this thread (or is it too painful for you).


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Cons just pretend it didn't happen.


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

All in good fun. Maybe before starting another inflammatory thread about the CBC one might think twice. 

Naw, not capable of removing the blinders.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

jimbotelecom said:


> Maybe before starting another inflammatory thread about the CBC one might think twice.
> 
> Naw, not capable of removing the blinders.


As is evidenced here.


----------



## dstanic (Feb 18, 2012)

I was listening to CBC radio last night, they were talking about the 10% as if it was the end of the world. That they might have to put advertising on CBC Radio 2 (OMG!) less TV content (on noes!). The only thing I honestly would miss is if they cut some of the documentaries. They should GIVE UP on their craptastic TV series like Arctic Air (or whatever it's called) because nobody cares about them! Everything has to have a dorky Canadian stereotype applied to them which makes for awful programming.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

dorky canadian stereotype? As opposed the american stereotypes played out on american tv?


----------



## Rps (May 2, 2009)

I think it is easy to dislike the CBC, however they do service a very large and wide constituency... Much of which we in the GRAND neither see or hear. That said, I find CBC radio extraordinary and I would easily pay for the service....but to many the CBC means television and alas I can't think of one programmers they have produced that I would buy some he box set.... Maybe all the good Canadian production teams are working for HBO.

As for the news....much of your belief in their bias is probably based on your own.


----------



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

Rps said:


> I think it is easy to dislike the CBC, however they do service a very large and wide constituency... Much of which we in the GRAND neither see or hear. That said, I find CBC radio extraordinary and I would easily pay for the service....but to many the CBC means television and alas I can't think of one programmers they have produced that I would buy some he box set.... Maybe all the good Canadian production teams are working for HBO.
> 
> As for the news....much of your belief in their bias is probably based on your own.


Amen, Brother Rps. I would agree with these points. I would say that I have CBC One and Two on during the day and night far more than I watch TV. My main daily viewing on TV is The National. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Rps said:


> I think it is easy to dislike the CBC, however they do service a very large and wide constituency... Much of which we in the GRAND neither see or hear. That said, I find CBC radio extraordinary and I would easily pay for the service....but to many the CBC means television and alas I can't think of one programmers they have produced that I would buy some he box set.... Maybe all the good Canadian production teams are working for HBO.
> 
> As for the news....much of your *belief in their bias is probably based on your own.*


True but also true of those who think they lack a bias.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

dstanic said:


> I was listening to CBC radio last night, they were talking about the 10% as if it was the end of the world. That they might have to put advertising on CBC Radio 2 (OMG!) less TV content (on noes!). The only thing I honestly would miss is if they cut some of the documentaries. They should GIVE UP on their craptastic TV series like Arctic Air (or whatever it's called) because nobody cares about them! Everything has to have a dorky Canadian stereotype applied to them which makes for awful programming.


Well time to get upset... they're cutting documentary productions.


----------



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

BigDL said:


> Well time to get upset... they're cutting documentary productions.


Doc Zone?? :-( That was some of their best works.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Put these docs on Pay TV so people who enjoy them can pay directly for their production.


----------



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

Macfury said:


> Put these docs on Pay TV so people who enjoy them can pay directly for their production.


I would rather see my tax dollars used for these sorts of quality programs that are available to one and all.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

BigDL said:


> Well time to get upset... they're cutting documentary productions.


Don't know where you are getting that from...

CBC to cut jobs, programs over next 3 years



> ...As well, there will be *a reduction* in in-house documentary production, she said...


----------



## dstanic (Feb 18, 2012)

BigDL said:


> Well time to get upset... they're cutting documentary productions.





Macfury said:


> Put these docs on Pay TV so people who enjoy them can pay directly for their production.


Yeah I like Doc Zone, and I would consider paying for it. I just don't give a damn about LIttle Mosque and Heartland and these other shows. Give up on the dramas CBC!





groovetube said:


> dorky canadian stereotype? As opposed the american stereotypes played out on american tv?


That is what I said, EH! Actually some show like Being Erica were neutral, I just don't want to be reminded about how it's suppose to be a Canadian (or American) show. Don't give me silly "Canadian" accents. I want to focus on the PLOT, if there is one.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

funny enough, in some parts of Canada, people actually talk in those silly "Canadian accents".


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

The CBC needs more funding.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

screature said:


> Don't know where you are getting that from...
> 
> CBC to cut jobs, programs over next 3 years
> 
> ...


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

seems the pair of them (screacher and furious) love to just twist whatever you write.

And then wonder why it gets ugly.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Might just be the effects of a portion of this thread's title "To Put 'Their' Spin On Issues." As for other threads, I cannot offer, any plausible explanation...well...nah, never mind.


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

Cut them some slack when they are faltering. It's gotta be tough be a HARPER CON apologist in recent months. 

Great entertainment value though.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

jimbotelecom said:


> Cut them some slack when they are faltering. It's gotta be tough be a HARPER CON apologist in recent months.
> 
> Great entertainment value though.


the buzzkill must be just brutal. :lmao:


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

Mind you the true believers are thick headed enough that they still believe nothing is wrong with their world view. You sometimes can't teach an old dog new tricks.

It's when they get rabid, not unlike ol'yeller, you have to consider other options.


----------



## Rps (May 2, 2009)

I have a question...... How does HBO make money to support the exceptional programmes they deliver? While the OP started this thread on his view of the CBC news bias, we have slowly moved to a core issue.... It's television programming. If the CBC were more like HBO this thread would be many pages shorter. So the question is, how does HBO make money and why doesn't the CBC follow that model?

That said, there are certain areas where the CBC has historically been a global leader, such as children's and family programming....would you sacrifice those areas, should we sacrifice sports (as there is much more access to sports today).


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

I'm all for canning Dawn Cherie. Otherwise a focus on news, documentaries, and children's programming preferably all commercial free would be fine by me. 

The HARPER CONS and their apologists have another agenda, that is to limit critique, of their illegal governmental practice. 


Various funding models have been explored for decades and consensus has developed that PBS funding model will not work in Canada. HBO is cable/sat subscription only. 

The Feds will continue to fund the CBC mandate as they will suffer at the polls where CBC is at times a sole source of connecting with the country. 

I'll add that CBC is by far the finest broadcaster of Olympic sports on the continent. 

If you don't like the CBC don't watch, listen, or read its content. If you don't like paying into the CBC - move. 

CBC haters are in the minority. Time for them to shut up and move on.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

jimbotelecom said:


> I If you don't like paying into the CBC - move.
> 
> CBC haters are in the minority. Time for them to shut up and move on.


No, time for us to keep pushing for further reductions in CBC funding--because it's working!


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

Change the mandate. They will not because HARPER is a gutless, law breaking liar.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Rps said:


> I have a question...... How does HBO make money to support the exceptional programmes they deliver? While the OP started this thread on his view of the CBC news bias, we have slowly moved to a core issue.... It's television programming. If the CBC were more like HBO this thread would be many pages shorter. So the question is, how does HBO make money and why doesn't the CBC follow that model?
> 
> That said, there are certain areas where the CBC has historically been a global leader, such as children's and family programming....would you sacrifice those areas, should we sacrifice sports (as there is much more access to sports today).


This is a good question, and one that I don't think I can fully answer. However, at least part of the answer is that HBO is producing purely entertainment programming, for a target market consisting of essentially the entire Western World (certainly hundreds of millions of potential viewers anyway). The CBC has a much more constrained mandate; making shows about Canada/Canadians, set in Canada, with Canadian talent, etc. with a target market consisting of 10's of millions at most. I don't see how the CBC could compete with HBO without abandoning it's mandate, at which point how/why is it different than any other media company?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc said:


> I don't see how the CBC could compete with HBO without abandoning it's mandate, at which point how/why is it different than any other media company?


Americans make U.S. shows about Americans. Canadians can do the same--and if nobody wants to watch them or buy advertising for a lot of them, they will simply go off the air.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

jimbotelecom said:


> ...If you don't like the CBC don't watch, listen, or read its content. *If you don't like paying into the CBC - move*.
> 
> *CBC haters are in the minority. Time for them to shut up and move on.*


One of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard... Move because you don't like the publicly funded state broadcaster...?  Why don't you move because you don't like the current administration....? Hmmm...?

Maybe because as a tax paying citizen it is your right to complain when your tax dollars are being spent on things you don't support.

Just a totally ridiculous comment.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Rps said:


> I have a question...... How does HBO make money to support the exceptional programmes they deliver? While the OP started this thread on his view of the CBC news bias, we have slowly moved to a core issue.... It's television programming. If the CBC were more like HBO this thread would be many pages shorter. So the question is, how does HBO make money and why doesn't the CBC follow that model?
> 
> That said, there are certain areas where the CBC has historically been a global leader, such as children's and family programming....would you sacrifice those areas, should we sacrifice sports (as there is much more access to sports today).


HBO is subscription based, if you want to watch it, you pay for it, if you don't, well you don't get to watch it. I would support this model for the CBC or like the model of PBS based on donations of viewers and other large (deep pocket) sponsors.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

screature said:


> HBO is subscription based, if you want to watch it, you pay for it, if you don't, well you don't get to watch it. I would support this model for the CBC or like the model of PBS based on donations of viewers and other large (deep pocket) sponsors.


Exactly. And if people don't like to pay for the CBC, they can leave the country.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macfury said:


> Americans make U.S. shows about Americans.


We're talking about HBO... they make shows about Romans, various fantasy worlds, chemistry teachers who deal drugs etc. Great TV, but not really about Americans (well... except for the drug-dealing chemistry teachers I guess). It is, however, eminently marketable to Americans (and Canadians, and Europeans, etc.) which is my point.



> Canadians can do the same--and if nobody wants to watch them or buy advertising for a lot of them, they will simply go off the air.


This is exactly true. Our society has decided that spending a tiny fraction of our social revenue on producing entertainment that helps preserve our cultural identity is of sufficient value to justify the expense, even though it could not possibly compete in the global market. That strikes me as a good investment*. And before you say "well then *you* pay for it" you have to recognize that it's like health care; the benefits are far greater if everybody contributes.



{edit to add: * I'll bet the costs of making the Republic of Doyle have been significantly offset by increased tourism to Newfoundland}


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macfury said:


> Exactly. And if people don't like to pay for the CBC, they can leave the country.


It has often occurred to me that you seem deeply enamoured of the American Way. Why don't you move to the U.S. if you think that they are doing such a good job of allocating social resources?


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

bryanc said:


> It has often occurred to me that you seem deeply enamoured of the American Way. Why don't you move to the U.S. if you think that they are doing such a good job of allocating social resources?


The US has higher per capita government spending than Canada--I don't see MacFury going in for that, even if he's not a fan of how the Canadian government spends its money.

There's also the whole erosion of personal privacy and civil liberties happening there, or at least, happening a lot faster there than here.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Macfury said:


> Exactly. And if people don't like to pay for the CBC, they can leave the country.


Yep so it is in the world of jimbotelecom. If you are in *ANY* minority in a country and don't like the way some things are done you just STFU or move...

Ch***t I should have never have lived in Quebec for the 35 odd years I have, despite the fact that I love most of the people, the way of life (joie de vie) geography and the overall culture...

I heard a quote recently and I don't know it's source and it doesn't really matter that much who said it, I agree with it... "I love Quebec, I just hate the politics."

So you can love the place you live without loving everything about it.... it doesn't mean you should have to move just because of the things you don't like... To suggest otherwise is basically Jingoism at a domestic/provincial/national level and completely antidemocratic.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

You can't really compare HBO to CBC because it's a case of apples & oranges. as others have pointed out HBO is subscription based (and expensive) where as CBC is available to everyone. 

Better to compare the CBC to other Canadian broadcasters. In terms of televised News I rank CBC newsworld *much* higher than CTV's offering (which tend to be shallow and superficial in their reporting), or any of the other corporate news shows (Global, City, etc..). Also I beleive that it really isn't in the public's interest to get their news *ONLY* broadcast from channels fully owned & operated by corporate interests. That different perspective is an important factor that i would hate to see disappear.

Regarding Sports, CBC does it better. HNIC is better than the offerings from TSN & Sportsnet. It's not even close IMO. And i'm sure that HNIC is actually a moneymaker for the network.

Regarding the original content that they produce, I'm not a fan of most of their original series (however i have enjoyed their new comedy Mr. D). I have no idea what the viewership #'s are on them, but at the same time i recognize that i'm not the only person they're creating content for and tastes differ. I do enjoy the documentaries they have a hand in, and also their news shows outside of CBC Newsworld.

However, when i look at their original content i would certainly say it's no worse than other original content by canadian broadcasters. I rather the CBC produce shows i never watch than have our airspace filled with vapid programming from CTV. How long until they give us a 24 hour Etalk news network hosted by Ben Mulroney? ugghhh


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

Actually I said shut up quite politely. Apologist traitor.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

To be fair Jimbo, no one betrayed the apologists. They seem solidified in their own wee domain.


----------



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

bryanc said:


> It has often occurred to me that you seem deeply enamoured of the American Way. Why don't you move to the U.S. if you think that they are doing such a good job of allocating social resources?





Sonal said:


> The US has higher per capita government spending than Canada--I don't see MacFury going in for that, even if he's not a fan of how the Canadian government spends its money.
> 
> There's also the whole erosion of personal privacy and civil liberties happening there, or at least, happening a lot faster there than here.


They also have President Obama as their current president. It is too late for Macfury to go to the US and become a citizen to vote for Ron Paul. Still, there is time for him to go to the US, become a citizen and run with Rand Paul as the 2016 President/VP ticket. We shall see.

However, as I told my wife, if we retire to the US, we lose our health care. Serious illness would ruin us financially. So, while neither of us has had to tap into the health care system for major health problems, better to stay here and let our tax dollars do their work to help provide health care for one and all.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

jimbotelecom said:


> Actually I said shut up quite politely. Apologist traitor.


:lmao: Really? You said shut up quite *politely*..? I didn't know there was any polite way of telling someone to shut up..!

"Traitor"..?!! "Traitor"..!!? Nuff said...



> Jingoism at a domestic/provincial/national level and completely antidemocratic.


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

There are ruder ways of saying shut up and you certainly know how. 

Apologist.


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

I admit I like this thread. It illustrates so much about the HARPER CON apologists.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Sonal said:


> The US has higher per capita government spending than Canada--I don't see MacFury going in for that, even if he's not a fan of how the Canadian government spends its money.
> 
> There's also the whole erosion of personal privacy and civil liberties happening there, or at least, happening a lot faster there than here.


Exactly. Canada is now moving in the right direction. If we reign in excess government spending we'll do even better. I like it here, and I am committed to making Canada work.



bryanc said:


> That strikes *me* as a good investment*. And before you say "well then *you* pay for it" you have to recognize that it's like health care; the benefits are far greater if everybody contributes.}


It strikes YOU as a great investment, but only works if everybody contributes? I have a bunch of plans that I could suggest that I would like to see established, but they only work if you and others who don't agree with these plans or approve of them contribute to them.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

jimbotelecom said:


> There are ruder ways of saying shut up and you certainly know how.
> 
> *Apologist*.





jimbotelecom said:


> I admit I like this thread. It illustrates so much about the HARPER CON apologists.


You make a ridiculous statement insulting people who don't like the CBC and telling them to move and then *you* get upset..?

Have a Happy Easter/Passover Jimbo.... you agent provocateur you.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

screature said:


> You make a ridiculous statement insulting people who don't like the CBC and telling them to move and then *you* get upset..?


This is the face of compassionate liberalism.


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

Naw I'm not upset at all. Just having a little fun the whole family can enjoy. 

Happy Easter to you too screature.


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

You on the other hand MF do not get a Happy Easter. Apologist.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Like I said--liberal tolerance and compassion, on display for all to see.


----------



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

I am all for compassionate liberalism, as well as liberal tolerance and compassion -- flip sides of the same fine coin.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Sonal said:


> The US has higher per capita government spending than Canada--I don't see MacFury going in for that, even if he's not a fan of how the Canadian government spends its money.


I did not know that. I knew that they spent more on their broken health care system and got a lot less health care for it, and I knew that they spent more on their broken education system and got a less well-educated citizenry for their expense. I suppose, given their astronomical military spending, and wildly expensive and ineffectual war on drugs on top of these other things, I should've known, but I honestly always thought the one thing they had on us was a proportionately smaller and cheaper government. 

Well, I should say for the record, that in my opinion MF is always welcome to stay in Canada, even if he continues to fail to see how the CBC makes Canada a better place. It just seemed odd to me that someone who continuously promotes American-style solutions (even when those 'solutions' have been demonstrated not to work), does not move to this land of Milk-and-Honey. They even have better weather than us.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

*Funding cuts expose CBC pension ponzi*

Funding cuts expose CBC pension ponzi
iPolitics



> Teeth are being gnashed over the loss of staff and programming, but these cuts pale in comparison to the costs of propping up the CBC’s pension ponzi scheme. How will it fund its current pension solvency deficit of $801 million (2010), which is more than double the $382 million deficit the previous year?
> 
> In 2010 employees contributed $26.9 million while $51.2 million was added by taxpayers. The split is supposed to be 50/50, but CBC has chosen to ask taxpayers to fund the deficit without asking employees to contribute more. To properly fund the pension solvency shortfall, the CBC, under normal accounting rules, would be required to fund an extra $160 million each year over the next five years.
> 
> ...


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

50/50 split? I wonder what the number is for parliamentarians.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

screature said:


> Funding cuts expose CBC pension ponzi
> iPolitics



Just think, screature, if the CBC hadn't arranged this disgraceful scheme, they could have saved those two programs that they decided to cut.


----------

