Shootings

[Marc Montgomery]

Rob- I wish it were so, but if you watched newsworld.."news now" as they ve relabelled it..it was incesstantly covered....criminal psychologists have long said media over exposure of these tragedies only serves to inspire other marginals.

Chris-the reason news covers local car accidents, robberies, and "weather terrors" (notice how we are to fear weather so much these days) is because it's easy--ie cheap-- the private stations think of profits only and its much cheaper to send a reporter to stand in front of a crime scene, and say "im here at a crime scene" or have them stand in front of petrol station and say prices are up..
(as if we hadnt noticed that already ourselves)...rather than assigning them for two or three or more days to dig into a story- Why are the Pan Am games so overbudget...why i mean really why are petrol prices at the same level now with crude at $100 as they were when it was $140...... the privates wont do it as it costs money, and it takes time....and time on air to explain complex issues.. never on local radio..and no interesting pix...... the CBC cant do it anymore as it costs money it no longer has and in the past 5 years over 2000 of 7000 employees are gone with 1500 more to go...it is shocking the destruction of the cbc...still looks like a mighty oak on the outside, but completely gutted inside.

What do you know of FIPA for example or TISA- two things that will seriously affect our lives--costs money and time to dig into complex issues and deliver them in layman's understandable terms....and virtually no media outlet can do it anymore,,so they still have to fill the air time or the news pages..so they opt for the cheap story, and especially with colourful or sensational visuals (none of that with FIPA or TISA or UPOV-91-all of which hands our sovereignty over to multinationals)

[rob love]

Marc: We could start a thread on the CBC...that is a subject into itself. Perhaps they should have learned not to bite the hand that controls their funding. The media can report politics, but they should net mess with politics.

I saw a lot less info on the shooter in this event than I have in others. We normally hear about their school life, their current life, their parents, their personalities, etc etc etc. This guy we heard very little about, and hopefully the bulk of the media continues to take the high road in this matter and does not sensationalize the person himself. It just makes a goal for the next nutball.

[Marc Montgomery]

re the shooter: perhaps there was less, which is very good, alas, News Now (newsworld) really does go overboard still...again probably because there are many fewer reporters to gather other news.

As for the hand that feeds them, reporting on govt failures and foibles, waste and excesses is exactly its function. If the CBC did not, then you would never know and people would absolutely guaranteed complain the CBC was not fulfilling it's function., but of course with cuts like this, reporting on the govt activities will become less and less and reporting on the "easy" crime stories and stuff like gas prices (telling us prices are up..but not the false excuse reasons) will become more common..and Cdns will be even less informed about real issues

[rob love]

There are more than a few examples of the CBC manipulating stories with an anti-conservative slant. One example that comes to mind was a cut and paste job they did, where they attributed a sentence Harper gave as part of a story when in fact it had nothing to do with it. Due to complaints form the public, they ended up having to give a one line apology on air a few days later during their news.

Then there was the occasion where a CBC journalist was writing the speeches for a Liberal politician. With things like that happening, how are we to expect fair and unbiased reporting from them.

Or how about their Christmas interview with Harper a few years ago, where their lighting man ended up giving Harper a shadow under his nose to make him look hitler-esque for most of the interview.

The CBC used to provide a service that Canadians needed back in the day in order to provide radio and television to remote areas, and to provide a Canadian identity. However, thanks to satellite, I believe just about anyone can have 300 channels these days. If they can make a go on their own, good for them. But if they are dependent on taxpayers dollars, then I think those days may soon be over. Aside from Dragon's den for me, and Coronation Street for the wife, I don't think they'll be missed in this household.

[Marc Montgomery]

But if they are dependent on taxpayers dollars...

Cdns should realize that the "private" networks are publicly subsidized to the tune of a billion dollars a year.

As for being anti- conservative, one must remember it was Chretien who initiated the largest single cut to CBC.
Whichever party is in power has always accused CBC of being "anti"...its because the CBC are doing their job holding govt feet to the fire.
Frankly for $0.55 a week, I get wonderful entertainment and information from cbc radio and tv..from a variety of shows.
Plus, at almost the lowest funding in the world, no other public broadcaster in the world faces the challenges CBC has to face
Meanwhile Sun Media, (which recieves public subsidies) owned by businessman and now (rabidly) separatist Parti Qeubecois politician PK Peladeau, has long mounted a campaign against CBC- Radio-Canada, Why? to eliminate what he sees as competition for his own media empire.

PS- sure one can recieve 300 channels, but virtually none will have Canadian stories.

[rob love]

Truth be told every business in Canada receives some level of subsidy through tax deductions and grants. And for sure those deductions will be part of the budgeting and bottom line. But those are not their prime source of income.

I find Sun news brutally frank and honest, often giving a non-politically but honest and correct report of the news. One of the best examples of this was the Idle no More event, where Chief Spence lived in a tepee in Ottawa for 20 odd days on a hunger (?) strike. While the CBC and others were clamoring over making her a saint, it was Sun news who pointed out that after 3 weeks of fasting, her cheeks were still pretty Rosy, whereas political prisoners who had done the same thing were often near death within a few days to a few weeks. They also dug up the dirt on her common law partner who was earning ungodly amounts from the reserve as band manager, taking donations in support of her hunger strike (he battled in the media that these donations should come to him and not the band) while the band itself had just the year before declared a state of emergency over the deplorable living conditions.

Where was the CBC during all this? In the main scrum, reporting how the prime minister and the governor General, nor the Queen herself, weren't showing up to negotiate with Ms Spencer.

Cdn content? You're kidding right? Is little mosque on the prairie one of your examples of this? I'll take corner gas anyday.

[Marc Montgomery]

"Truth be told every business in Canada receives some level of subsidy through tax deductions and grants"

Big difference between a tax deduction and a grant...and Im talking about grants to private media businesses

Cbc certainly reported on Spence boyfriend, in fact..."Public records show Kennedy declared bankruptcy just five years before he became the band's money man. He declared debts of $24,380 and assets of $2,403 in his September 1996 bankruptcy filing.Kennedy's past money problems come to light as Attawapiskat and Spence face questions over a scathing audit of the band's books that found a missing paper trail for millions of dollars between 2005 and 2011.
Part of the period covered by the Deloitte audit overlaps with Kennedy's second tenure as the band's co-manager."


CBC is/was hardly singing Spence praises



Oh and I agree it was no hunger strike, total farce IMHO, more like a healthy diet, although she didn't seem to lose any weight, but there is a difference between being overly sensitive (perhaps in this case), and being biased which they weren:t. Besides I think the CBC was the only one to point out that Spence was camped out illegally on the island

BUT Why wasnt the Globe and Mail accused of being anti-Progressie Conservative when they published the one photo of Stanfield fumbling the ball, instead of any of multitude of photos of the 20 or so catches he made cleanly? A photo which cost him the election.

Why wasn't CTV accused of anti-Lib biased when they aired the Dion interview with the messy re-starts when they said they wouldn"t

Meanwhile, just listened to a very interesting first episode "The Bugle and the Passing Bell", ...archival interviews with First War vets.. I just cant see that happening on any other radio.

I never watched LHO Praire..thought it dumb to say the least, but that doesnt detract from the multitude of other interesting and informative shows..... On the other hand cant say that e-talk is what you would call really enlightening tv.

And again I am reminded of the fact that Sun media is owned by a separatist who wants to destroy this country

[Tony Wheeler]

Originally Posted by rob love

If they can make a go on their own, good for them. But if they are dependent on taxpayers dollars, then I think those days may soon be over.

Rob, the whole idea of public broadcasting is to be NON commercial. It's there to serve the public, not to return a profit. That's why it's OWNED by the public, so it can be FREE of vested commercial interests. How else can we get FREE and INDEPENDENT news and information? Without public broadcasters, the public has no voice. If we stop funding public broadcasters, we lose our voice and hand it to the likes of Murdoch. That's the end of democracy right there.

Wherever you sit on the political spectrum, you'll always find fault with public broadcasters, because it's their job to give EVERYONE a voice, particularly minorities who would otherwise have no voice whatsoever, let alone in their own language. Inevitably that puts them to the left of commercial media, whose job it is to appeal to the majority, because they're running a business.

Obviously I'm not familiar with CBC political coverage, but just like the ABC here they have to constantly strive for balanced reporting. As opposed to commercial media, which is free to represent the views of the owner, and do so vigorously, irrespective of public interest. Often when that happens we see the public broadcaster deliberately lean to the left, in an attempt to introduce some balance into public debate. Invariably they're accused of lefty influence, which is not actually the case when you look at the Board, although I agree they overstep the mark sometimes. Perhaps the Harper incidents you mention are examples of that. However, unlike commercial media, they're often seen to furiously backpedal in response to public criticism. At the end of the day they're accountable to the public, because that's who owns them.

I'm not familiar with Sun coverage either, but I agree wholeheartedly with Marc that Peladeau's entry into politics is an extremely sinister development, and you only have to look at Sarkozy to know that. You can't call it democracy when politicians control media. Nor is it democracy when media controls politicians, and there's no better example than Murdoch in the UK and Australia. He's decided nearly every election in my lifetime, and it's always about business, not politics. Over the decades he's thrown his papers behind Liberal, Labor, and Tory candidates, depending on who'll favour him more in office. He couldn't give a rats about the people or the country, he has no national allegiance whatsoever.

These media moguls have the power to subvert democracy in their own interests, and if they choose to exercise it, we as citizens have only one weapon against them, and that's public broadcasting. We don't have to watch it, but we sure as hell need it. As for the cost - a lot of people fought and died to preserve the democracy we enjoy today, so I figure the least we can do is fork out a few cents a week.

[rob love]

Tony
I hear you on the value of the public broadcaster. But the CBC here has always been decidedly left. They have swayed elections. Even in the face of a Conservative majority last election, when it was obvious to everyone, they were still advertising polls which had the Liberals winning. Afterwards, when the Liberals were sent to a purgatorial 3rd place finish, their pollster (Frank Graves) just says "I can't believe how wrong I got that". Now they are making a buffoon like young Trudeau to be some kind of Messiah.

The CBC would seem to put their support behind whomever will let them keep the biggest budget. Now they are paying the price for that.

One would almost hope there could be some level of entertainment from the public broadcaster. I looked at their lineups on the web, and of the list of active series, there are few to none that I watch.

CBC radio is another story, and I do find a lot of their programming entertaining and informative. However I have to admit that they are not one of my programmed channels on the satellite radio.

[Marc Montgomery]

I cannot but totally disagree with the "decidedly left" and "always" arguments.
As mentioned, when the Libs are in power the CBC is roundly accused of being 'right" and and when Conservatives in power..accused of being left.
Has always been thus, this is not recent.

They do NOT sway elections, anymore than CTV. What about that Globe and Mail photo of Stanfield that singlehandedly cost the PCs the election.. a well-known fact.. is the Globe anti-Conservative?

I seem also to recall the CBC accused of being anti- Ignatieff for its coverage of Liberal leader Iggy's gaffes-

What about CTV's obviously anti-Dion interview...where are the accusations there?

When it comes to elections, the CBC is under a very stringent microscope to ensure it gives almost exactly proportional coverage (in airtime minutes- and web word count coverage) to the major political parties--

The CBC does NOT do its own polls, it -like other institutions- hires outside well-respected pollsters....

Polls are a guess at best..Ive been around long enough to see polls and final result radically differ. IF the polls are wrong, it is NOT the CBC fault.

CTV GLOBAL CBC are using the same polling firms which are limited in number in Canada, and poll results can differ quite a bit from week to week.

One must also pay close attention to who is being polled, what is asked, size of the polling group, and where.
CBC might hire Ipsos to poll federal voter intention among 18-35. and CTV might ask IPSOs to do the same thing but 35=60 yr old..results could differ greatly but if youre not paying attention you'll wonder whats going on.

One may ask voters in Ontario, and another cross country- again results may differ greatly... one might have polled 900 people across canada, another 3,000, same question, same group but different results as a result of polling sample.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...olitical-Polls
Eg- the last Qc election was called coz the seppie polls said the PQ would get a majority.. ooops !!!

You simply cannot accuse the CBC of biased polls.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...olitical-Polls

I must also strongly disagree that the CBC is treating Trudeau like a messiah.. rather, nothing more than the party leader..

How can you judge if you dont watch? or listen to the network??.. If your source of info is Sun, well that's a problem..as the sole purpose is to stir up dissent between English Canadians and Qc (benefits seppie movement) and also attack the CBC (eliminate competition and a federal institution which PKP feels is enethma to A) his business, and B) an independent Qc

As for your entertainment, well, I highly appreciate CBC political show like the House, and many others like Ideas, Tapestry, Land and Sea, Doc Zone, Marketplace (now a budget cut victim)- 22 minutes, and lots of people love Rick Mercer, Sunday Morning, Nature of Things. news reports- which unlike the privates- greatly limits use of American reporters. The Debators- (cdn comedy- often fabulous)

Also the CBC promotes Canadian artists and performers to far far greater extent than privates who prefer the cheaper-thus more profitable route- of syndicated US shows

Do i love every CBC show, not at all, but surprisingly some that I hate - This is That- Q, Strombo (gone-budget) are strongly defended by others... matter of taste.
but really for 55 cents a week, Im getting darn good value for my money..at a cost far far less than other public broadcasters, none of whom face anywhere near the challenges the CBC faces in terms of its mandate, obligations, affirmative action. competition etc etc