CBC Prez Hubert Lacroix is starting to get quite the lambasting from conservative bloggers for his appeal for more taxpayers’ money.
Since the mere thought of the CBC asking the government to increase per-Canadian funding from $33 to $40 makes me see RED , I’ll leave it to my colleagues to handle this one.
However, I can’t pass up a comment on this line:
…In an "ideal world," Lacroix said, the CBC could free itself from its dependency on advertisers. The current setup, however, does not make those allowances, he said…
Yeah, reality sucks, eh? Here’s a thought though. How about producing some shows that are actually relevant and that don’t try to continually preach the politically-correct view of the world as the CBC sees it?
Or perhaps the CBC could ask the Liberal Party to do a little extra fundraising on behalf of their fellow caucus-members .
* * * *
Tuesday Update : CBC target of surging information complaints: report – Globe .
I am patiently waiting for the CBC to make a blunder of ADSCAM proportions so the government can make a confidence motion to shut them down.
.. a blunder of ADSCAM proportions ..
Isn’t a BILLION dollars a year down the toilet a big enough blunder?
-
It might also make them appear more sympathetic if ALL their channels were accessible with basic cable, and not stashed away on the digitaal bands.
As a taxpayer I fund the CBC, willingly or otherwise, but if I want to watch Bold (formerly Country Canada I believe), I have to pay extra for it as a “specialty channel”.
The only reason that CBC still exists without much Canuck grumbling is partially because of CBC owning the NHL coverage “Hockey Night In Canada” and of course the fact that overall Canucks pay little attention to where and how their tax dollars are spent.
Harper is a Hockey lover but a CBC hater when it comes to it’s left wing socialistic management and objectives. Until another private broadcaster can succesfully overbid the exclusive rights to televise Canadian NHL hockey teams and/or American teams during playoff + a Conservative majority elected, Harper will not touch it.
But, that does not mean he will agree to increase the funding demand. I hope the opposition, specifically the Liberals start squawking in favour of the CBC request so to put some light and hopefully open a Canadian debate on the faith of this media dinosaur. Like the Senate reform debate which is starting to gain momentum around dinner tables, hopefully the same might happen for us to wake up long enough to finally decide what to do with the “Conservative Bashing Corporation”.
I’m sick and tired of having my tax dollars pay for douchebags like Strombolombolombolombolombolopolous that ten 15 year old girls in Toronoto watch.
Get the CBC out of my wallet then I wouldn’t give a crap when the feed questions to Liberals to ask in committees.
I nearly threw my coffee cup across the Humpty’s restaurant this morning as I read that article in the paper.
Why not do it the democratic way and let voters decide the CBC’s fate in the next federal election? What better way than straight from the people?
No more money for the CBC
CBC can learn a lesson from TVOntario. TVO is relying on more and more on corporate sponsorships for their funding of their programs. I applaud TVO seeking the private sector to keep them going, while doing the best they got with public funds. As Joanne said the CBC is on a rigid ideological move to preach their leftist politicallly correct view of the world and will NOT do this! Simply because they are rigid collectivists and believe that tax-funded payer is the only way. Prime Minister Harper should say to the CBC, “Look to TVO as the model for success—or we’ll cut you off completely and put you on the chopping block!” Of course the CBC will be up in arms, brainwashing the lazy and uninformed masses on how this will be tragic for the country.
I read about the request this morning and also saw red. Nobody watches the CBC. It should sold .
The cbc wants more money, ok, let’s negotiate.
cbc promises to can George (the hour) Newman promises never to have Susan Delacourt or Don Martin on again, and also promises to give both sides of every story. Keith Boag is canned, along with Julie Van, and all the other Susans employed at cbc.
That’s a start, then we will get serious, no more trips abroad at our expense, no bashing of the USA, blast the liberals who march with terrorists, and quit being in the tank for Dion.
If they do the above, maybe we will give then a couple of thousand dollars more.
I have mentioned before the CBC radio out of Sudbury is a great morning program(Morning North). The guy blew my sox off when he challenged the local Libs and Dippers during the past Ontario election. And it is very tuned in to the community. Let’s say it is not typical CBC.
As for the rest of the gang…I like Mary’s proposal. It is our taxes…give us a say in the distribution…or get them to privatise and stand on their own.
Mary T., those are good conditions. I would like to add that they should be allowed to keep Rick Mercer, Don Cherry, Rex Murphy and “Marketplace”.
I like Hockey Night in Canada
I like the Fifth Estate
I like MarketPlace
I like Dragon’s Den
I like CBC Radio News
I like CBC News Business with whatever his name is
I like CBC News Around the World
I like Wendy Mesley (sp.?).
I like Politics with Don Newman–has to be the best political show on this continent. He cuts through everyone’s b.s., I find, without playing favourites.
George Stephanopolous brings news to young people, which is not a bad thing, even if he is a jacka** to anyone over 30.
I like that we have CBC journalists in other countries–Adrian Arsenault is great, for example.
I like the feel of CBC’s national presence.
I like its support for the arts and such.
I don’t think that CBC “preaches a politically correct view of the world as it sees it”. Or, what does that mean anyway?
I don’t think that CBC “preaches a politically correct view of the world as it sees it”. Or, what does that mean anyway?
Little Mosque on the Prairie comes to mind…
I like Hockey Night in Canada
I like the Fifth Estate
I like MarketPlace
I like Dragon’s Den
I like CBC Radio News…..
So, I gather you would not have a problem paying a subscription fee for it then?
Perfect!
Problem solved.
–
So, I gather you would not have a problem paying a subscription fee for it then?
Exactly! Why should the CBC be subsidized anymore? It’s an archaic notion.
CBC is against Israel existing. Now is that A GOOD REASON FOR GETTING RID OF THE CBC. Any organization that supports the extermination of the Jews is a reason to get rid of it. I am not Jewish. I am a fourth generation Canadian who respects another Nations right to exist.
That is the CBC position based on it’s historical broadcasts. Give me an example where they are balanced and I will give you several where they are hateful in a subliminal way.
More tax dollars so the CBC can put even more smut on?? No way.
Soccermom – You noticed that too? Those shows are getting raunchier and raunchier. I think it’s some kind of marketing move to capture a ‘younger’ audience. At least that’s what I’ve heard.
Reminds me of those films like Young People F*cking that are getting tax credits courtesy of you and me and every other tax-paying Canadian sucker.
Hoarfrost, what are you talking about? Please explain. I am not familiar with the “CBC’s” support of the “extermination of the Jews” or its opposition to “Israel existing”. I guess you’ll have to start at the beginning and lay it out for me like I’m an idiot so I know where you’re coming from on those conclusions.
I’m not against CBC being subsidized because of the particular benefits it provides to a huge country, but with an extremely small, but diverse and spread out population.
It’s not like the CBC blows sunshine to the Liberals when they’re in power.
How does the broadcasting of Little Mosque equate to the preaching of a politically correct point of view as held by CBC? Again, what does that mean anyway? I don’t think that you’ve explained what you mean by saying that show comes to your mind. Please elaborate.
If the CBC’s main objective is to turn Canada into a communist state then we don’t need it at all.
Hey, I love the CBC! Oh, wait I thought you meant the CPC. Never mind.
I have not watched the CBC in over a year, but my tax dollars still flow into that Liberal cesspool? Just like most TV series come to an end, it’s time for the CBC to call it a wrap!
I don’t think that you’ve explained what you mean by saying that show comes to your mind. Please elaborate.
I’m saying that in general, their programming tends to push a politically-correct point of view – in comedies, drama and documentaries, not to mention news. The underlying tone is one of telling us how we should be thinking about minorities. i.e. Trying to teach. I find it all a bit too pedantic. This is why I think they’re losing ratings. Nobody likes to be preached at.
Regarding Little House, perhaps it’s changed in the last little while. I stopped watching it because it was causing a distressful condition in my stomach forcing me to hurl frequently after each episode.
Hejhog – Google George Stephanopolous (American broadcaster and political advisor)
“This article is about George Stephanopoulos, who is not to be confused with George Stroumboulopoulos, the Canadian television and media personality with a …”
“Exactly! Why should the CBC be subsidized anymore? It’s an archaic notion.”
The CBC is subsidized for several reasons.
One is that it is the only broadcaster to provide local programming to several remote areas, which would be denied local programming if it were left up to the private sector. This may not be such a large issue in the internet age, but it has been one of the foundations of the CBC for decades.
Another reason is that it is mandated to carry Canadian content. If you are going to mandate the type of content, you have to subsidize. If you take away the mandated Canadian content we are left with another network showing American TV shows, and quite frankly we have enough of those type of stations.
To suggest a TV show is “politically correct” because it shows Muslims living in harmony with small-town Canadians is just weird. Perhaps you are unaware of how many northern Alberta towns were populated by Muslim immigrants in the 20th century.
Perhaps you are unaware of how many northern Alberta towns were populated by Muslim immigrants in the 20th century.
Links please.
I also want to know where Gayle gets her info re muslims in northern Alberta.
There are several muslims in Edmonton, does she think that is a small town.
Gayle (and others)
what IS the definition of “Canadian Content”
I find it odd that as a nation we can’t define what it means to be Canadian yet, whatever it is we want to portray it in our programming.
Does Canadian content have to be from the Liberal perspective? How about we let the CBC stay and encourage Mr. Harper to be fair and spend an equal portion of our taxdollars a broadcasting corporation that tells the other side of the Canadian mozaic?
Or doesn’t the Conservative ideal suit you?
what IS the definition of “Canadian Content”
That was going to be my next question for Gayle. You make some very good points, Sol. Why should the story always be told from the Liberal perspective, indeed?
There is no effective argument against people who refuse to acknowledge — or perhaps they just don’t see it — the overarching political correctness of the officially-sanctioned Lib-culture all-Canadian narrative-writing exercise. It’s futile, because they simply deny it exists; it’s like it’s always been there, it’s a central pillar, some kind of natural, neutral, sensible resting point. These beliefs of its proponents are posited, and then signed off on, as *the* reasonable world view; everyone else it not being reasonable.
Gail wrote: “The CBC is subsidized for several reasons. One is that it is the only broadcaster to provide local programming to several remote areas.”
The CBC costs Canadian taxpayers a billion dollars a year, give or take; what Gayle refers to as “local programming” in these “several remote areas” is predominantly the same stuff the rest of us get — The National, The Hour, Sophie, etc. — most of which is created in the GTA, by people who are part of an embedded, profoundly Liberal-connected scene. It’s not as if Chalie Agkuluk is live-broadcasting the movement of Walruses in Iqaluit, and if he was, it shouldn’t cost a billion dollars a year.
“Another reason is that it is mandated to carry Canadian content. If you are going to mandate the type of content, you have to subsidize.”
So….if you are going to produce cultural material that not enough people want to watch, and which reflects a social/political viewpoint that is anathema to a great many of them, you will have to take money from those people, against their will, to pay for this stuff they don’t want to watch.
Okay. *IF* we are going to mandate anti-statist — i.e. anti-daycare, anti-union, pro-American, pro-liberty — content, we’ll have to force those who oppose such positions to pay for it. Because…that will be the way it will work.
BTW, I live in north/central Alberta and have traveled extensively in the region. I’m puzzled by Gayle’s assertion that “many northern Alberta towns were populated by Muslim immigrants.” Is she confusing Muslims with Germans, or Scots, or Ukrainians, perhaps?
Canada’s second and North America’s third Mosque was built in 1958 in Lac La Biche to serve the local and visiting Arab community. Largely of Lebanese origin, the Muslim faith in the region has roots dating back to the early 1900s. Currently Lac La Biche has the highest population of Lebanese people per capita in North America.
http://www.laclabicheregion.ab.ca/index.php?id=3
What is Canadian content?
Why do I have to answer that question? The fact is that the CBC was created to ensure Canadian content on the TV screens in Canada. I am not defending that, nor criticizing it. It is what it is, and if you oppose subsidizing then you must also oppose mandating Canadian content. Same for local programming.
As for your assertions that the CBC only produces “liberal” content, that is a matter of perspective. Those of you who know me are aware of how very silly I think your “liberal bias” conspiracy is. When you start with that assertion as though it is true, it renders the rest of your arguments meaningless.
I suggest one of you embark on a scientific study of media bias in this country if you want people to accept that claim.
When you write nonsense like this:
“There is no effective argument against people who refuse to acknowledge — or perhaps they just don’t see it — the overarching political correctness of the officially-sanctioned Lib-culture all-Canadian narrative-writing exercise. It’s futile, because they simply deny it exists; it’s like it’s always been there, it’s a central pillar, some kind of natural, neutral, sensible resting point. These beliefs of its proponents are posited, and then signed off on, as *the* reasonable world view; everyone else it not being reasonable.”
I suggest you need only reverse the terminology and apply it to people who refuse to acknowledge the lack of liberal bias, or rather, refuse to prove the existence of bias.
Guess my son has been keeping secrets from me, as he has lived in Lac La Bische for several years. Mostly natives. Northern Alberta was settled way before 1958. Isn’t that where there is all the fuss re moving the remains of a mountie.
“What is Canadian content? Why do I have to answer that question?”
You don’t have to answer any question, Gayle, it’s just that, since you’ve made clear that you think it proper and justifiable that others who oppose your world view should be forced to pay a billion dollars a year to promote it, you should make an attempt to, you know, put it into words what that world view is, at least nominally. I mean, we’re talking thousands of millions of dollars to a network that fully advertises, too, like the private networks they compete with but who don’t get billions from taxpayers.
That in your mind the massive subsidization of the things you like, at the expense of others, for the purpose of promoting your version of Canadian values requires no justification speaks volumes, Gayle.
“…it’s just that, since you’ve made clear that you think it proper and justifiable that others who oppose your world view should be forced to pay a billion dollars a year to promote it,…”
When did I say that?
Your argument does not become stronger by making things up. Instead, it demonstrates that you cannot address what I am actually saying and are forced to fabricate my argument in order to counter it.
Mary – I guess he is – either that or the official website of the town is a lie.
I never said they were entirely populated by Muslims, by the way.
I can understand the arguments against subsidizing a television network from a free market perspective which it sounds like some people are getting at.
But the CBC is more than that. I think the whole of the CBC is important to the country.
Could EBD articulate the ‘world view’ promoted by the billioin dollars per yeer?
Jo, I still don’t get what you’re saying about the supposedly politically correct programming. You are saying they should have more controversial programming? more racy? more what? What should it have? Are there examples of programming that has told you how to feel about minorities? What did it tell you about how to feel? How do you feel about minorities, by the way?
Mary, why would your son hide it from you that there are lots of Lebanese in his town? Do you think less of him now? I hope they’re not there to steal the oil.
Thank Mac, for correcting my “Georges” confusion.
The reason he has never mentioned it is because they do not cause any problems, or try to push their beliefs on anyone. They do own most of the businesses in LLB. Natives are still the majority of the population.
But Gayle, you said the north was settled by muslims. I said LLB was settled long before 1958, as was the north. I do think there were people in the north long before settlers came.
There are many word, terms, topics that the cbc can’t use in their news. That is what we mean by Politically Correct.
Those words etc were set out by the head honchos of cbc years ago.
And, the reason my son never mentioned the lebonese population, it never came up. Why would it.
Mary, to be clear, this is what I said:
“To suggest a TV show is “politically correct” because it shows Muslims living in harmony with small-town Canadians is just weird. Perhaps you are unaware of how many northern Alberta towns were populated by Muslim immigrants in the 20th century.”
Not “settled”, “populated”. The context of this statement was in response to this post:
“”I don’t think that CBC “preaches a politically correct view of the world as it sees it”. Or, what does that mean anyway?”
Little Mosque on the Prairie comes to mind…”
which suggests that a program that depicts Muslims in small towns is somehow politically correct and not based in reality. Muslims have been living and worshipping in LLB for decades.
Mary, you said your son was “keeping secrets”, as though it were an issue he ought to have known to bring up with you.
You are saying they should have more controversial programming? more racy? more what?
More realistic. Something like, “Big Love in Brampton”, for example.
okay… go on…
There are many word, terms, topics that the cbc can’t use in their news.
That’s right. I think one of the words they’re not allowed to use is “terrorist”.
And of course Stephen Taylor’s done some great exposés on CBC’s news torquing.
“Could EBD articulate the ‘world view’ promoted by the billion dollars per year?”
Sure — and it’s not like I’ll be the first: Urban, GTA-centric, pro-union, pro-status quo on Aboriginal funding protocols, pro-state (pro-day care, for example), anti-American, anti-Conservative, pro-immigration — just generally, reflective of a primarily Liberal-voting Torontonian point of view that’s an impedance mismatch (we’ll ride our bikes and take transit to work after we drop our kids off at the g-funded kiddie barn) with much of the non-urban heartland of the country.
So much of the CBC is about connected Liberals, basically. You especially see that in CBC news’ “experts” they talk to. And shows like “Sophie” fairly drip a blithe, self-considered morality, almost bitterly hip, that doesn’t gibe with the views of Canadians who go to church or synagogue or mosque, or who live in small town or rural environments.
Gayle: I wrote “you’ve made clear that you think it proper and justifiable that others who oppose your world view” should pay for it’s promotion, and I stand by that, because here and elsewhere you have been entirely consistent in discounting, doggedly and at length, the opinions of those who believe that taxpayers shouldn’t be forced to pay for the broadcast of political/social viewpoints they strongly oppose, albeit, typically you do so by asking them to prove that the positions being broadcast are actually biased — as if a person’s own profound dislike of being billed to promote political viewpoints that are anathema to her own needs to be proved to you or anyone else.
Sorry Gayle, but you can’t publicly hold a position so consistently and then call it someone else’s “argument” when it’s noticed. There were no quotes around my characterization; those were my words, and my description. But I believe that any moderately reasonable person who’s noted your position over time would consider it an accurate — if lively and mildly contentious — version of your expressed views.
I have a premonition, though, — wish it was preemptive — that you’ll disagree…
/:>o>
“So much of the CBC is about connected Liberals, basically. You especially see that in CBC news’ “experts” they talk to. And shows like “Sophie” fairly drip a blithe, self-considered morality, almost bitterly hip, that doesn’t gibe with the views of Canadians who go to church or synagogue or mosque, or who live in small town or rural environments.”
What do you and people like you gibe with in terms of entertainment? What shows or other forms of entertainment do you watch or go to or whatever, that you don’t get from CBC?
So, sometimes CBC doesn’t have “experts” in support of your point of view? I don’t know if you’r right, I might not watch CBC as much as you, but what about other Canadian News or Investigation shows. Are they similar (leaving aside the funding issue and focusing on the alleged bias issue)? CTV, Global, W-5? What is the story with them, if any?
“I have a premonition, though, — wish it was preemptive — that you’ll disagree…”
That is probably because you are making things up. Hard to agree with someone who does that.
Don’t be like that, Gayle. Come on. You have in fact been perfectly clear on the matter, here and elsewhere, that you’re fine with the taxpayer funding of the CBC. Big deal. It’s not an untenable or scandalous position, so why, after having staked out your — reasonable — position so clearly and well do you think you can suddenly deny it? Why would you even want to? If you suddenly, now, for some reason, oppose the taxpayer funding of the CBC, for god’s sake say something.
Hejhog — you ask good questions. Can’t really answer them all here. But you asked “What do you and people like you give with in terms of entertainment?” Well, I honestly have no idea where my preferences overlap with other people’s. I’m not a so-con, I’m not religious, but that’s neither here nor there because I’m not stumping to have my particular perspective broadcast, at other taxpayers’ expense, by a multi-billion dollar government corporation. My position is simply that the political/lifestyle preferences of GTA/Vancouver/Montreal Liberals are not universal and should not be funded as such.
“So, sometimes CBC doesn’t have ‘experts’ in support of your point of view?”
More than sometimes, actually, but honestly, it’s not about any specific topic; I’m talking about a brand of regional viewpoint that for years now has deigned to broadcast — didactically, yet — that it’s a national one. Particularly when Mansbrdige is hosting, for some reason, and there’s a piece on climate change, or on Harper versus the bureaucracy (gasp!) or on Afghanistan or on various other hot-button issues, the Canadian “experts” are almost inevitably from the GTA or Ottawa area — Carleton, Queens, Ryerson, York, U of T, various think-tanks, etc.
Trust me, if nine out of every ten experts called up by our state national broadcaster were from the Calgary region — U of C, say — and their expressions reflected the views of Calgarians, the whole exercise, in the specific context of a hammering, national government broadcast over the course of years, would cause something between puzzlement and outrage to Ontarians. As it stands now the reaction out here to the Toronto National is milder than that — slightly — because we’re used to it.
Suffice to say that there are regional characteristics in this country that are undeniably political as well. Outsiders — outliers — are paying billions for the promulgation of a particular regional view that increasingly seems to exist for the sole purpose of protecting its preeminence, resulting in a zealotry that aggressively denies its own parochialism — on the “others’” dime, yet.
I’m not — at all — fond of the other outlets you mentioned, but it doesn’t matter because they’re not broadcasting on the taxpayers’ dime. CTV news is similar in many ways to CBC, just less egregious because their reporters aren’t Lib-connected bureaucrats — they’re more like infomercial realtors, or something.
Yes EBD – I am fine with the CBC being funded by the taxpayers. That is not what you said, however. You said:
“…it’s just that, since you’ve made clear that you think it proper and justifiable that others who oppose your world view should be forced to pay a billion dollars a year to promote it,…”
and that is a lie. Pure and simple.
Why don’t you try – just try – and address the FACT the CBC is tax funded because it is mandated to carry Canadian content almost exclusively. Please get off these tiresome unsupported arguments the CBC is “promoting” “my” world view.
Look, you just admitted that you are fine with CBC being funded; well, $1B just happens to be the actual figure, and it comes out of taxes, no? So inasmuch as you support the CBC in its current form, you ARE saying that it’s okay for others to be forced — taxes, remember? — to pay a billion dollars a year to promote world views that are anathema to their own. You just don’t like the way I said it.
Supporting the CBC, as you do, is world view in and of itself, separate from whatever perspectives are promoted by the network. Perhaps its GTA-centric world views are not your own, but one would have to assume that if you support the current CBC, you would only do so if you thought it proper and justifiable. You know the figure, and the non-volitional nature of the funding. Let’s just leave it at that.
(BTW, I suggest you read some of Robert Fulford’s columns on the internal culture of the CBC, and how self-selecting and self-enforcing and monolithic and politically-correct is it; while my argument might be “tiresome” and “unsupported”, the case itself isn’t.)
As for your second point, if you look at CBC’s daytime schedule, there’s some inconsequential, low-budged Canadian fare — a lot of it is not produced by the CBC, incidentally — but there’s a lot of Frasier, Arrested Development, etc., The Simpsons, the Martha Stewart Show, and other American fare.
What is your world view, BTW?
Just kidding.
I thought there are a couple U of C people that are regulars with Mansbridge and/or Newman.
You know what might be helpful is if you could pick a recent hot topic issue that was discussed and describe the point of view that CBC promulgated as per usual, and the point of view that was missing. Pick anything that provides a good example. I think that would be more beneficial for me to hear than talking in generalities.
I’ve failed to detect when it hasn’t represented all parties on hot topic issues, but certainly representing all parties, does not equal all points of view.
Hejhog, start with this for background.
It appears that Gayle can’t(or will not) define the Canadian Content she thinks Canadians taxpayers should pay for.
You live in a very small box indeed if you feel that the only reflection of Canadian content is seen through the eyes of the CBC.
Let CBC go head to head in the marketplace and let the true Canadian mosaic decide, by choice which broadcaster to watch.
Put the question to a referendum and let Canadians decide once and for all if the government should be in the broadcasting business.
Lorne Gunter nails it this morning.
EBD – you continue to insist I have some value system you disagree with, and that the fact I support funding the CBC means I am “promoting” something. I do not even agree the CBC is promoting anything.
Let me put it another way. I do not support our military action in Afghanistan, and yet I am forced to pay for it with my tax dollars (and if you want an example of promoting world views i doubt you could find one better). I do not support giving rich people 100 dollars per month per child, yet I am forced to do so with my tax dollars. If we all got to select where our tax dollars go, not much would actually get done now would it.
You have no actual evidence the CBC promotes a world view. In my view, the CBC endeavours to be objective – something that is necessary in a world where our media is controlled by big money interests promoting their own world views.
The reason I support subsidies, however, is because they are mandated to carry local programming in remote areas, and they are mandated to carry Canadian content – two FACTS you have as yet to address in your arguments, relying instead on personal attacks on my to make your dubious “point”.
(They are not mandated to carry 100% Canadian content, by the way).
Sol – defining the Canadian content is not relevant. The fact it is mandated is. I am not sure why you have such a hard time with the fact that makes it difficult for the CBC to compete on an even playing field with other, privately funded networks.
And if you want it in a referendum, then I want Afghanistan, and the child care subsidy in a referendum too.
“I do not support giving rich people 100 dollars per month per child”
great generalization there!
How is that a generalization? Do you deny that the child benefit goes to each and every child below the age of 6, refardless of their parents’ incomes?
Jeff Allen is discussing the CBC right now. You can listen live here.
That 1200/yr is taxable to the mother, and it does affect other benefits-gst, ctc, personal exemption for spouse, so it is not free money.
There are many parents that are investing that money into an account for future education.
Rather give families the money than China re carbon credits.
Sure Mary – but I still object to giving mulit-millionaires the money, even if mom does have to pay taxes on it.
at least it is fair
“I do not even agree the CBC is promoting anything.” Yes. Understood. That’s right. You don’t. It might be mildly eerie, and it pretty much obviates anything you have to say on the topic, but there you have it.
Of course, if the CBC took a 180 degree turn and became an exact, perfect mirror image of its current self, and began promoting an anti-Kyoto, pro-American, anti-public sector union — hello — perspective, I doubt you’d fail to acknowledge that it has a perspective.
Robert Fulford is possibly more informed about the matter of the CBC’s “promoting” than you are, by virtue of the fact that he worked there for years. He described CBC people as “a remarkable cult, the proprietors of a vast reservoir of smugness they are incapable of recognizing as such. For generations, they have been constructing a body of impregnable, self-regenerating opinion….they are pre-selected and their views are pre-recorded, like most of their programs.”
CBC producers “believe in universal one-tier medicare, feminism, the Kyoto accord, employment equity and the United Nations. They consider Israel an embarrassing upstart state and remain unimpressed by its accomplishments. They hate the Bush administration but they are routinely anti-American even when someone more agreeable occupies the White House.” Globalization “is another word for evil.”
On his days at CBC: “I began to realize that they all read the same publications and thought the same thoughts. Many became friends of mine, but I developed an aversion to their eerie uniformity of views.”
So have millions of Canadians who are forced to pay for the broadcast of those parochial, self-congratulatory, insular, twee views. Here’s Lorne Gunthers take from today’s National Post:
http://www.nationalpost.com/todays_paper/story.html?id=540092
Quote: “No matter how bad or offensively biased it is, it gets to keep plodding along doing whatever it feels like because it has a billion tax dollars a years with which to shield itself from the indicators of the market. It can insult the political views of millions of Canadians on a nightly basis and do so with their own money.”
Money quote from this BLY thread: “Defining the Canadian content is not relevant. The fact it is mandated is.” That one’s not in the maritime book of knots, that’s for sure. We’ll just leave it as is.
OK – apparently you cannot understand logical thought. I do not know how else to explain the fact you cannot comprehend that mandatory Canadian content would impair the CBC’s ability to compete with other networks, and therefore justifies subisdies. Perhaps you can explain why the definition of Canadian content matters.
So one guy who used to work there thinks they are a cult. Yawn. If that is all you have, then you do not have much.
I judge the material they present on the material they present.
Fair to who tori?
Not to me. I do not have kids, and I have a fraction of the income of professional athletes, and yet they get a hundred dollars a month to help them raise their kids – MY money.
Don’t be passive-aggressive, Gayle. Your disappearing act is simply not an argument, no matter how much you insist, and imperiousness, or feelings, do not set the terms for what is and isn’t logical thought.
You continue to insist that the mandating of Canadian content is what’s relevant, yet when you’re asked what Canadian content IS you say that it’s “not relevant.”
You can be as unaccountable as you wish, but I’m not going to abnegate examining your position simply because you cross your arms and tap your foot.
Nice try at the deflection EBD.
Clearly you cannot address the argument. Time for you to admit that and move on.
Here, I did your homework for you. I do this even though you have yet to say WHY the definition of “Canadian content” is relevant.
02 CBC/Radio-Canada’s Mandate
CBC/Radio-Canada’s current mandate is set out in the Broadcasting Act that became law in 1991. In 2003, after an exhaustive review of the Canadian broadcasting environment, the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage reaffirmed the importance of public broadcasting in Canada in its report Our Cultural Sovereignty. More recently, the government, in its response to the recommendations of the Heritage Committee, re-affirmed CBC/Radio-Canada’s role within Canadian society as envisioned by the Broadcast Act.
The Broadcasting Act states that…
“…the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, as the national public broadcaster, should provide radio and television services incorporating a wide range of programming that informs, enlightens and entertains; …the programming provided by the Corporation should:
i. be predominantly and distinctively Canadian,
ii. reflect Canada and its regions to national and regional audiences, while serving the
special needs of those regions,
iii. actively contribute to the flow and exchange of cultural expression,
iv. be in English and in French, reflecting the different needs and circumstances of each
official language community, including the particular needs and circumstances of
English and French linguistic minorities,
v. strive to be of equivalent quality in English and French,
vi. contribute to shared national consciousness and identity,
vii. be made available throughout Canada by the most appropriate and efficient means and as resources become available for the purpose, and
viii. reflect the multicultural and multiracial nature of Canada;”
http://cbc.radio-canada.ca/docs/plan/pdf/plan2005e.pdf
The Definition of a Canadian Program
16 Section 3(e) of the Broadcasting Act says that “each element of the Canadian broadcasting system shall contribute in an appropriate manner to the creation and presentation of Canadian programming” but the Act itself does not contain a definition of a Canadian “program” or “programming”. This has been left to the discretion of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC).
17 What does the CRTC recognise as a “Canadian” program? The CRTC
recognises all of the following:
• programs that satisfy the CRTC’s own certification system
• programs produced in-house by a licensee of the CRTC
• programs certified by the Canadian Audio-Visual Certification Office
(CAVCO)
• programs produced internally by the National Film Board of Canada (NFB)
• programs certified pursuant to one of the various international co-
production treaties negotiated by the Department of Canadian Heritage
and administered by Telefilm Canada
18 For independent television and theatrical feature film productions, the
certification requirements established by CAVCO are essentially the industry
benchmark. A central element in the CAVCO certification process is the use of a points system that recognises the number of Canadian creative elements in the production (director, screenwriter, lead actors, head of art department, director of photography, etc.).
19 To be certified as “Canadian” by CAVCO, a program (other than a
coproduction) must achieve 6 points for creative elements. In addition to this
requirement, a Canadian producer must control the production and be the
principal decision-maker, the producer must hold world rights to the production for at least 25 years, and the producer must ensure that at least 75% of total production expenses are paid to Canadian production elements.
20 The CRTC’s own certification process has been substantially harmonised
with that of CAVCO but certain differences remain, including the certification of co-ventures described below. The CRTC’s certification process also forgoes any requirements with respect to copyright and distribution rights in its definition of a Canadian program.
http://cbc.radio-canada.ca/submissions/pdf/CBC_Submission_May_2002.pdf
“Hejhog, start with this for background.”
Jeez, how long you been carrying that link around in your back pocket just waiting for the right time to throw it down? Obsess much? Just kidding. Yup, that link is brutal. How did that conservative blogger make Harper look so good in that press conference? It must be fake, I tell you!!! Okay still kidding. Yes, that news piece was craptastic, no question about it.
Yes, that news piece was craptastic, no question about it.
Well, that was a famous Stephen Taylor coup, so it wasn’t likely that I’d forget it. They’ve done other less jaw-dropping things since then. If I come across anymore, I’ll let you know.
Thanks Gayle, that’s exactly it. Bureaucrats at the CBC and the CRTC have a definition of Canadian content, but inside that bureaucratese there’s nothing but process.
“…contribute to shared national consciousness…”
Great. I look forward to the airing of all the perspectives that’s part of our shared national consciousness by virtue of the fact that millions of non-Lib/left Canadians share them. We might see documentaries exposing the fraud of climate-change science, and on the gooning of Francois Beaudoin under the Liberals, and on the partisan corruption of the CBC’s news division, which is such a betrayal of our democracy, and fraudulent, essentially, and on the Canadian connections to the UN Oil-For-Food scandal, and on Maurice Strong and his mentoring of Paul Martin, and talk shows with Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn, and…. you know, all that stuff that will never be funded as Canadian content.
The link is just self-serving bureacratic bafflegab, Gayle. I had really been asking for your opinion.
Anyway, to the victor goes the last word — it’s all yours, Gayle. Chew that tire.
What possible relevance does my opinion on what amounts to Canadian content have to the issue that mandated Canadian content is part of the CBC mandate?
Oh right, none.
And after all that, you still have not addressed the actual argument. At least you are taking my advice and moving on…
Hejhog, there are literally dozens of jaw-dropping instances — too many to list here — of blatant, brutal and over-the-top bias from CBC. Here’s a few from just before the last election, and on election night:
1. CBC’s website had a cartoon image of Stephen Harper giving a nazi salute. When called on it they said it was a simple cropping mistake, but the full cartoon showed that to be a lame, fake and set-up excuse: The larger drawing showed Harper and Martin sitting on the ground throwing wooden letter-blocks at each other, but clearly Harper’s arm wasn’t in the position of someone having thrown something (unlike Martin’s) but was rather in a “sieg heil” position, and of course, that was the part of the putative cartoon that was cropped onto the election coverage page.
2. Alan Cutler, the man who first brought to light the corruption that would later be exposed as Adscam, had been nominated to run for the Conservatives in Ottawa South. The CBC National’s report, remarkably included a headshot photo of Stephen Harper floating proximate to one of…Sargeant Shultz of Hogan’s Heroes fame. See, it seems a guy who thought he might have the nomination had once dressed up as a nazi at a Halloween party, so…well, you get the picture: the story of the nomination of the biggest whistleblower in Canadian history, a man who was, not incidentally, an historic thorn in the side of the Natural Ruling Party, turned unaccountably into a story about how the guy who didn’t get the nomination, and how HE had once dressed a particular way at a party….
3. On election night in-studio guests were discussing possible cabinet positions; when someone mentioned Stockwell Day as a possible choice for foreign affairs Mansbridge erupted in barking, openly contemptuous laughter.
4. Also on election night, the word “heil” appeared prominently on an in-studio graphic for some length of time. The explanation later given was that the graphic was actually the word “their”, and that what happened was the “t” and the “r” got cut off, and that a cursor, which just happens to look like a lower case “L” had been inserted after the letter “i”…
probably just as fair if I had to pay taxes into a national daycare program that I would never use (sorry, but I prefer to raise my children myself).
as for the real topic at hand, surely you must realize that all news entities are biased, regardless of which way they tilt. Gosh, journalism 101 covers that pretty well.
What I find funny is that many on the left pay homage to our differences and how we should celebrate them. Certainly there is not just one “consciousness” that defines us as Canadian. I know the CBC does not represent me, and many other like me who hold conservative viewpoints. If the CBC is truly mandated to provide a “shared national consciousness” to all Canadians, perhaps instead of deciding what that should be for us, the CBC should be a reflection of us all.
After all, we do sign their paycheques, and they should be accountable to us, the shareholder.
“I know the CBC does not represent me, and many other like me who hold conservative viewpoints. If the CBC is truly mandated to provide a “shared national consciousness” to all Canadians, perhaps instead of deciding what that should be for us, the CBC should be a reflection of us all.”
You may have a point here.
Tell me, what type of programming do you believe would reflect you? I am not including the news in this because I believe news reporters should strive to stay objective, and not reflect any personal bias.
no kidding gayle.
and you know what? the cbc is so far left that i don’t even have a desire to have it go the other way and become another fox. (just an aside, all news agencies have a bias, but print and tv…) I would just like some BALANCE and have the cbc show both sides, or all sides…because there never s only one side to everything.
but not everyone is left. not everyone is even centre. By willfully ignoring a segment of society by not only underrepresenting their side but also denigrating it (read instances above) it’s no wonder segments of our country want to disband and go their own way.
but = both…coffee has not kicked in yet
coffee has not kicked in yet
I hear ya, Tori. Apparently there is a way for me to edit comments in WordPress, but I’d rather not, for a lot of reasons. Readers can generally figure out what a typo was originally meant to say anyway.
[...] the upside, we may have the answer to CBC President Hubert Lacroix’s lament about the need to increase ratings . The plot is already there – it just needs to be fleshed out [...]
So tori, your real complaint with the CBC is not the programs, but rather is the news coverage.
What I think is that some people have become so complacent about the right wing slant found at the NP, the Sun chain, MDL and Global that they cannot recognize objective and balanced reporting for what it is.
the programs pretty much bore me…
see, the diff between you and I gayle is that I recognize that there are right leaning media. You refuse to see others as left leaning and instead choose to say they are balanced. they are not.
oh, and please fill us in on who in your estimation brings “fair and balanced” reporting….’cause I have yet to see it.
I have seen the CBC viscerate the liberals, so I am not sure why you think they support them. At Issue has a panel filled with conservatives. Hebert in particular dislikes Dion, and makes no bones about it.
Don Newman does the liberals no favours – he is as hard on them as he is on any other party.
As for balanced reporting I would say Don Newman, Andrew Coyne (a self confessed conservative but he is fair – ditto for Don Martin), Craig Oliver, the Globe and Mail.
Even though I often disagree with these reporters, I have to admit they come to their conclusions and opinions honestly and fairly.
i’ll grant you coyne comes close…but the rest??? not so much.
and how does a dislike for Dion make someone anti-liberal?
Don Martin?!?! you’ve GOT to be kidding!!! G&M is sneaky in it’s bias
I don’t think you truly get the idea that EVERYONE comes to the table with a bias, and that bias colours how information is communicated and disseminated. No one is truly unbiased. Why do you think the scientific method uses blind and double blind methods for clinical trials? It’s not because scientists want to do extra work- it’s because as humans our bias can subtly influence how we intrepret EVERYTHING.
How else do you explain how you can bring up a person…say Duffy…and have me think he’s less right wing and have you think he’s totally right wing? The human brain is very efficient- we only look for instances that confirm our already ingrained bias, and reject the rest. So you will bring up times when Duff was applauding the CPC and I will think of those times when he was much more critical.
It gets even more complex because not only do we have to deal with an individual’s bias (in the media), we have to deal with another’s view (also biased) of that medium, messenger, and message.
IOW, no one is unbiased
Of course everyone has a bias, but you are talking about systemic bias in an entire network, and I disagree with that.
I also believe that it is not impossible to look at things objectively. Our entire system of justice, for example, relies on that type of objectivity.
How else can it be possible for Coyne to be fair?
how can you agree that every individual has a bias, yet claim that a news organization (made up of individuals) does not?
Because there is more than one person who sets the tone for the news.
For example, if I am running a news program, and I am giving the “left wing” view of an event, the appropriate thing to do would be to include someone who has a different view.
So, you and I may discuss a story and together determine what is the fairest way to air it.
A reporter does a story, and then it is vetted by editors, directors, producers etc.
“Because there is more than one person who sets the tone for the news.”
if news is truly objective, why would there be a need to “set the tone”?
I think you just proved my point that news is NOT objective
Please – just because I used a phrase you do not agree with does not mean I have proven your point.
Try to deal with the substance of my argument rather than my phrasing.
sure…if news is objective and only factual there would be no need to “set a tone for it”.
is that simple enough?
fact checking, yes. the 5 W’s, you betcha. Setting a tone? A fancy way of saying introducing opinion and bias.
And your response does nothing to forward your argument, btw…
In fact, “setting a tone” is more in line with fictional writing…setting the tone and mood of a story with descriptive words and phrases…
Tori – you know perfectly well when you read the entire post that I was not referring to bias when I used the phrase “setting the tone”. Fair enough it was not the best phrase to use, but your interpretation is not my intention, which is obvious in the context of the entire post.
Nice try in deflecting from the real argument. You are starting to sound like EBD.
And you were doing so well…
gayle,
first, I’m debating you because it is fun…I have a healthy self-esteem that does not require me to seek external approval from u or others…
no I don’t know that that is what you meant. It’s impossible to reconcile “setting a tone” with objective writing…and you did choose that phrase. Don’t blame me for your poor choice of words. All I have to debate are your words…nothing more.
I’m not deflecting the argument at all. I’m still waiting for how one “sets a tone” in reporting otherwise objective facts without the injection of opinion and bias…
I’ll go one further.
I’m going to assume that you will agree that humans are made up of their cumulative experiences (although I know a part of me is assuming things as I’m quite sure you’d debate the sky grey when it is actually blue…sorry could not resist…)
These experiences colour how we perceive the world, for good or for bad. We have our whole lives to build up our “truth”…and the funny thing is that we actively seek out instances to confirm our our opinions and ignore the rest. I mentioned this before, but it bears repeating. Some good studies on this. I can give you instances where Duffy was incredibly hard on the CPC, but you wont recall them, or you will spin them so that they will support your truth…just as I would in reverse. It’s human nature.
You don’t stop being human just because you work in media, especially one whose job is to put out the news of the day…
OK – there is more than one person who decides what airs or gets published. Individual opinion/bias is muted when it is vetted through others’ perspectives.
People are more than capable of rising above their own biases in order to look at things objectively. They do this by first recognizing those biases exist, and also by getting the opinions of others.
“What I think is that some people have become so complacent about the right wing slant found at the NP, the Sun chain, MDL and Global that they cannot recognize objective and balanced reporting for what it is.”
I have to come back to this point you made…mostly because it intrigues me, and partly when my H read it he LOL.
and I think it is a good concrete example of how we view our news thru our biased coloured glasses.
Please correct me (I’m sure you will!) if I am putting words in your mouth, but to paraphrase…
right wing slants found at the NP, the Sun chain, MDL and Global are not representative of “objective and balanced reporting”
You did not touch on any left wing slants…can I assume that you think there are only biased right wing media organizations and organizations who are objective and balanced?
And could those objective and balanced orgs possibly be considered that way to you because they are a reflection of your opinions, beliefs, etc? Just putting it out there.
“OK – there is more than one person who decides what airs or gets published. Individual opinion/bias is muted when it is vetted through others’ perspectives.
People are more than capable of rising above their own biases in order to look at things objectively. They do this by first recognizing those biases exist, and also by getting the opinions of others.”
couple of points before I must depart…’cause I’m damned tired- not sick and tired…just need sleep.
Might be a generalization, but most companies, including news orgs have what you will call “culture”. When new people are brought into a company, they make sure that their personality is a good fit with the company’s culture. Someone who goes against the grain or culture would not be such a good fit.
Is it at all possible that people in a news org have similar POV?
second point, given how easily our brain is capable of tricking us, I think you give people too much credit that they will overcome their tendancy to bring their bias to the table, even if it is ever so subtle.
And last point…
Biases will make us do crazy things. From everything I’ve read of yours, you seem to be a person who believes in second chances, of innocent until proven guilty, of rehabilitation. I do find it curious that all those values seem to go out the window the minute you can use it to build your bias against the CPC.
and with that, I call it a night
“You did not touch on any left wing slants…can I assume that you think there are only biased right wing media organizations and organizations who are objective and balanced?”
No. Clearly the Toronto Star is a left leaning liberal news organization.
I mentioned right wing organizations because my larger point was that many BT’s seem to hold them up as unbiased reporting, and measure the Star and the CBC against them.
Global, the NP and the Sun are unabashedly pro-conservative. They make no bones about that and do not pretend neutrality on the issue of political spectrum. Ditto for the Star.
What you seem to be ignoring in all your discussions about “culture” and “bias” is the fact that many professions require objectivity – including journalists. There is such a thing as journalistic ethics. You continuously ignore that fact.
Here is another point. Generally, when the BT’s see a news report that dares to criticize Harper, the claims of bias come fast and furious. On some sites the very notion that he can be criticized for anything sends people into apoplexia.
Compare that to libloggers – many of whom claim bias too – but many others who accept criticism for what it is. The acknowledge it and move on. Many of them cite the “offending” article and comment on it favourably.
See, that is being objective. It is possible.
“What you seem to be ignoring in all your discussions about “culture” and “bias” is the fact that many professions require objectivity – including journalists. There is such a thing as journalistic ethics. You continuously ignore that fact.”
I don’t ignore it. I just don’t see it. There is a difference between a written code of journalistic ethics and the actual PRACTICE of it.
“Here is another point. Generally, when the BT’s see a news report that dares to criticize Harper, the claims of bias come fast and furious. On some sites the very notion that he can be criticized for anything sends people into apoplexia.”
yeah, I don’t see ANY instances of that on liblogs. you guys are as pure as the driven snow
Come on Gayle, your shit smells, too.
I actually see both on both sides: BT’ers very critical of the CPC (Harper needs to be more conservative) as well as the usual partisan-ites. I’ve also read a number of liblogs who are critical of the LPC and some who are quite partisan and cheerlead-ish as well.
“See, that is being objective. It is possible.”
You really must warn me when you’re about to do that. Almost spewed coffee all over my monitor…
Gayle you are hardly the poster girl for objectivity!
Just watching CBC Newsworld and noticed the news banner running across the bottom of the screen. Assume it is keyed in quickly, but in one session noticed
“smolder” – American spelling, very un-CBC
“not not”
“Maxine Bernier”
and use of “whom” when “who” fits the application.
Maybe we should just listen to the reporting/commentary.
I understand the exciting CBC Fall line-up will include Wheel of Fortune and Jeopardy.Will there be a Canadian version of same? Alex Trebek is Canadian and was at the kick-off so that takes care of one. Anyone like to venture Canuck versions of Vanna White and Pat Sajak? She should be able to wear dresses nicely (wink wink).
Maybe we can push this thread to 200 responses. My “notify me” e-mails now easily exceed the spam notices.
I never actually claimed to be objective, though I certainly try to be.
As for BT v liblogs, I was not actually trying to suggest one is better than the other, though I see how it looked that way. I do not read many BT’s so only spoke about the blogs I am familiar with, and I mostly try to avoid the uber-partisan liblogs as well, though I do comment at Cherniak from time to time.
My point is that on the liblog sites I go to, I often see objectivity vis a vis their acceptance of negative media opinion. You say that BT blogs display the same objectivity, and I will accept your word on that.
If bloggers can look at their own party objectively, why can’t the media?
At the end of the day I am not sure how biased any media really is. As far as I am concerned all the media really care about is selling papers, or ad time. It is in their best interests that we have an election, and we have another minority government so we can have another election soon. Do you really think a lot of people watch Newman or Duffy during a majority?
MM – my understanding is that both game shows will involve Canadian contestants and Canadian questions.
Not that I will be watching either of them…
Maybe we can push this thread to 200 responses. My “notify me” e-mails now easily exceed the spam notices
I had a good chuckle when I read that one. Thanks, MM!
forgive, they way you wrote “being objective”, it sounded like you were using yourself as an example of objectivity. Now I see you were using Liblogs as that example…and I’m still trying not to spew coffee
I’m just sick of the generalizations of conservatives = bad, liberals = good…and vice versa. Read any social psych text and you will see that many on both sides fall prey to the “us vs. them” attitude by lumping all BT’er and liblogers together like some homogeneous cluster.
Your last post certainly does read as if you were trying to say that libloggers are much more objective than BT’ers. Again, bias clouds the issue. You look to instances that support your views (I’m guessing the BT blogs you only read exemplify your ideas of what you think an “average” CPC is like).
I almost fell prey to it myself, thinking that CPC’ers were much more critical than libbloggers…but then I remembered reading some liblogs posts recently from some people who were critical of the LPC and Dion.
I’m also noticing that people deny bias in media when the media in question reflects their own views..both sides are not immune.
I hope you get my point that if both BT’s and libloggers are capable of being objective, then the media certainly is.
By the way, the CBC does not reflect my views. Sometimes I agree with them and sometimes I do not. I simply appreciate the fact they provide more than one side of a story.
Gayle, so when will the cbc, newman or boag tell the story of liberal defense ministers leaving files around, or other ministers doing the same thing, or anything bad that a liberal minister has done, and then been promoted to the senate for wrongdoing.
At least they could mention that other ministers in other parties have done wrong things.
And we never hear of the young man and a defense minister. Maybe he will soon out himself for an attempted 50,000. bribe.
And you should start watching the body language and facial expressions of said objective cbc reporters.
That tells you more than their words do.
“so when will the cbc, newman or boag tell the story of liberal defense ministers leaving files around, or other ministers doing the same thing, or anything bad that a liberal minister has done, and then been promoted to the senate for wrongdoing.”
Like…?
The fact you have to ask shows that you have not paid attention for the past years of liberal rule.
Lets start with Francis Fox and add the former mayor of Toronto. I am sure you know who that is.
Mary – why don’t you stop being coy and tell me what you are talking about.
I am not being coy, just stating facts that many of us remember vividly. Go read the comments in Readers Tips as small dead animals and you will get your answers. Fact is when liberal ministers did wrong they were promoted to the senate (not all of them, some got ambassadorships or other patronage jobs)
I am not going to do your research for you. If you have something to say then say it. Don’t ask me to address some phantom issue unless you are willing to actually bring something to the table.
Do you have a credible source or are you relying on bloggers’ comments on SDA.
(By the way, illegally obtaining an abortion for your lover is hardly in the same league as casually leaving classified documents lying around and then not retrieving them for 5 weeks. One deals with morality and the other with national security).
Think of the position Fox held at the time, think of the liberals saying abortion would never be allowed in Canada and at the time, it was a big issue.
We only have her word these documents were there for 5 wks. I am getting like you, I want proof.
And, you are not doing my research, just told you where to find the answers.
What govt was Coats in, as foreign affairs minister when he took files to a strip club in Germany. Think he got fired, never to be heard from again.
And, as these files were never opened, they say, how do we know they were top secret.
Mary, you are not making any sense.
Anyway, here is a link you might find interesting, since your complaint is the CBC did not cover any of these scandals:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/cdngovernment/sex-scandals.html
(and as for Coates, he was a conservative).
Bringing things up today is much different than the 24/7 smear the cbc does on conservatives. Yes, notice Coats was a PC, and notice he faded into oblivion, not put in the senate.
Over and out, you will never see the truth re the cbc and their smugness. Wait till we have our majority and cut funding by about 70%.
You do that Mary. You do that.
gayle,
just because a blogger decides not to tow the party line, it does not mean they are without bias or that they are being objective.
It usually means that their bias on that particular issue trumps their bias on party affiliation.
For example, generally you speak of rehabilitation and second chances, of innocent until proven guilty…yet your bias against the CPC trumped those normally held views once you realized that it could be used to build your case against the CPC.
Huh?
Are you referring to the many times I suggested we wait and see what happens with the In and Out scandal before we presume the CPC are guilty of breaching the Act?
Or are you referring to the fact I said from the outset there was no chance there would be any charges laid in Cadman?
I’m referring to Bernier’s GF.
Yeah, I think 200 comments is an achievable goal here…
200 sure would outdo Chuckers old comment-generator (heh heh).
sorry jo
Hey Tori, I’m not complaining! This is great. I love to see discussions continue, and for the most part it’s been quite civil.
MadMacs, I think Chucker had a comment record a few times that was close to 1,000 on a single post!
“I’m referring to Bernier’s GF.”
Then I refer you to DBT’s first post on this, when I said something to the effect that the opposition were being silly pushing this issue.
The only thing I condemn him for is for what he has admitted to – leaving classified documents at his girlfrien’s apartment.
that’s BS gayle, and you know it
What is BS?
Here is my comment – from DBT’s blog:
“Funny how this thread starts as a coment on the stupidity of the liberals taking Bernier to task for his choice in girlfriends, I agree, and yet it still turns into a personal attack on me.”
sorry gayle, let me re-phase that bettter, since I promised Jo I’d be nice…
I’m positive I’ve read a post of yours where after reading, the first thought I had in my head was that you had pre-judged the GF. I distintly remember thinking that it was incredibly unlike you, given your values of rehab and of innocent until proven guilty.
I do have an especially good memory…
Well I certainly do not remember anything like that. I guess it would help if you told me what you think I said about her. I do not recall ever saying anything about her actually.
Perhaps you were referring to this comment?
“And yet she is none of our business? The woman is dating a high placed cabinet minister and then uses information obtained during that relationship to make money, but the opposition was wrong to question her character?”
If so that was in response to Wilson condemning her, and I was simply pointing out the contradiction given the fact Wilson was taking the opposition to task for doing the same thing.
nope, not that one.
I don’t want to paraphrase, because I actually don’t like to put words in people’s mouths…
It will come to me.
In any case, the original point was that when someone appears to be objective by being critical of their preferred party that it is usually because another held bias/opinion trumps the party affiliation.
[...] in a previous post we discussed the merits of the CBC and the debate is still raging on. Please join in either there [...]
[...] know the Mothercorps is having fiscal problems but perhaps they should be looking to cut some of their unpopular programming and reducing staff, [...]