Could cuts to the cbc funding also be in the next conservative campaign platform.

Unfortunately, this government has provided more annual funding to the CBC than any other.

I don’t know anyone that would agree the CBC is neutral. It is a left leaning media outlet. Anyone sober and not bat$hit crazy can figure it out quickly.

The Global warmists have prime time. The CBC has not given the other side 1% of the same air time.

A few days ago the Lib blogs were posting in defence of their communications wing.

Don Cherry, Rex Murphy and Kevin O’Leary are very scared.

The reaction from the media regarding these ads is really quite funny. The CBC, like most “LIberal” mouthpieces in the media have kept Iggo safely hidden away from public scrutiny, giving Igg a free ride as he flip flops from one issue to another and never, ever holding Iggo accountable for any of the ridiculous comments attributed to him. The kind of manufactured hysteria and “outrage” currently being employed by the “Liberal” party media illustrates how effective and accurate these ads are. The CBC running cover on behalf of Iggo and the “Liberals” is a disgrace.

Those three are employable and would easily be able to find work elsewhere on stations that has actual viewers.

My concern is freedom of information requests. Why is the crown corp treated differently?

Those three are employable and would easily be able to find work elsewhere on stations that has actual viewers.

My concern is freedom of information requests. Why is the crown corp treated differently?

The Tories should behave legally. This means respecting copyright.

It is high time that CBC is completely cut off the public purse.

From Stephen’s post:
“Speaking with senior Conservative staff, I’ve learned that the Telecaster ID for the ads has already been obtained meaning the ads have been cleared by the agency that approves Canadian advertising for Canadian television.”

If “the agency that approves Canadian advertising for Canadian television” has granted the Telecaster ID — whatever that is — to the CPC, then one can safely surmise the Conservatives have behaved legally.

I am really enjoying Don’s political rants this year

what is your opinion on “fair use” provisions of the copyright act?

as the media landscape evolves and information is more and more accessible to everyone in remote areas, the need for a public broadcaster has diminished.

Maybe it’s time we tell our Conservative fundraisers no more donations until they drastically cut funding to the CBC . Every time I see the smiling Frank Graves on CBC with his polling numbers I see RED.

Oh no – CBC is definitely neutral (sarc off )

Dave Rutherford was talking to some guy from the Globe and Mail about the CRTC relaxing the ban on “misleading news” and brought up the bias of the CBC and the Toronto Star. This guy, in all sincerity, challenged him on that stating that he did not feel that these organizations, or any others were biased leftward in any way – of course, they went on to discuss the “right wing bias” of fox news and the impending bias of Sun TV. LOL

Another fact gleaned from Dave Rutherford while talking to the CRTC guy re Dire Straits song….did you know that the CBC is NOT a member of the CRTC as they are a public broadcaster. CRTC is ONLY for private broadcasting, therefore CBC is not held to any decisions the CRTC makes and no one can complain to the CRTC about CBC because they don’t have anything to do with them.

Nice gig huh!!

Approved

Approved

Scott, there are no “fair use” provisions in the Copyright Act. There are, however, “fair dealing” exemptions to infringement, none of which make any allowances for advertising.

Alberta Girl, it would seem that you have confused the CRTC (Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission) with the CBSC (Canadian Broadcast Standards Council). While the latter has a membership consisting of private broadcasters, the former has no members. It was the CBSC, not the CRTC, that made the recent decision concerning Dire Straits “Money for Nothing”.

You’re right, of course, that the CBC is unaffected by this decision. The CBSC is a creation of private broadcasters that is intended to administer standards for private broadcasters.

A further point of clarification, the CBC is held to the decisions of the CRTC, as is any other broadcaster, public or private, in Canada.

My name is Stephen, and yes… talking about copyright laws in two countries for comparative purposes can be a little clumsy when talking about the analogous concept. Perhaps I should have said “fair dealings/use” when talking about the law(s).

Don’t think they won’t be penning a fundraising letter about this very incident!

If the CBC is in a snit over the ads, you know the ads are good, and quite effective too. If the ads were to backfire — like the “Soldiers In Our Streets” ads did to the Liberals — simply put, the CBC would welcome them. In some respects, the best barometer for the effectiveness of Tory ads is the CBC itself. Unwittingly to the CBC, though. The more disdain they show for the ads, the more damaging to Iggy we know they are.

And the stakes are higher for the CBC this time around. With its own credibility on the line… whatever it had to begin with, anyway.

With the worst showing for the LPoC in the last election, the CBC thought it could simply dismiss those results as a one-off, chalking it up to Dion‘s leadership issues, that he wasn’t the party’s intended choice, and that he had trouble communicating his message in English. So what will their excuse be when Iggy fails to deliver? Fluently bilingual, well-spoken, the guy they fawned over at just the prospect of him being a leadership candidate. And the guy that everyone would acknowledge the LPoC wanted all along. But a guy, like with Obama, that we can all see now was completely oversold. It wasn’t what Iggy could or — as we can all see now — would become, it’s what the CBC wanted him to become. Nothing short of objective analysis polluted by wishful thinking. Something to be expected when all you have to cling to is “hope” and “change”.

We saw more of that with Travers’ appearance tonight on CTV’s Power and Politics — saying that there’s a real danger for PMSH that a spring election is called and Iggy suddenly catches fire with Canadians. I thought he was being facetious for a second but he was dead serious.

Keep rubbing those damp twigs together, Jim. It hasn’t happened for two years.

Kady’s owned up to being mistaken about where the PM can and cannot be filmed:

So, remember how the Conservative Party’s latest ad campaign — and, specifically, the spot filmed in the prime minister’s office — got me wondering whether it was against the rules that govern the use of parliamentary property for partisan purposes? Turns out that I may not have been entirely correct when I concluded that it likely was not — or, at the very least, wasn’t explicitly forbidden — since it was shot in his Hill office, and not his ministerial quarters across the street in Langevin.

First, though, I must own up to a major misapprehension of my own, namely, that the prime minister, like other party leaders, is a House Officer, and, as such, governed by the by-laws enforced by the Board of Internal Economy, which lays out the rules under which they can carry out their parliamentary functions, which includes not only public and official business, but also “partisan matters.”

There’s more:

http://www.cbc.ca/politics/insidepolitics/2011/01/cpc-adwatch-prime-ministerial-office-politics.html

Perhaps Kady could do her homework more thoroughly next time instead of jumping on the CBC’s let’s-criticize-the-CPC-PMSH-from-our-biased-bigoted-bandstand.

As I said earlier, my Canada doesn’t necessarily include Kady O’Malley — or the CBC.

O’Malley wasn’t following the rules of good journalism, she got caught, “misapprehension” is a nice word to cover her a**. Forgive us if we think this sort of stuff is par for the course when the facts get in the way of anything negative on the Conservatives.

Here are some posts that have mysteriously disappeared from this thread. What’s up?

My Canada doesn’t necessarily include Kady O’Malley.

And, O.M.G., the prime minister isn’t allowed to be filmed in the prime minister’s office working his butt off, which I know that this PM does? Says who? Prime Minister Harper doesn’t pose for photo ops in the MSM, the way the Lib$ always do/did. Get over it, anti-CPC/PMSH spoilsports. It’s his office, for crying out loud, so suck it up.

Stephen Taylor 5 hours ago in reply to batb

I’ll stick up for Kady. She aggravates a few Conservatives for sure but she’s a good friend. I’ll trade barbs with her any day, but that helps makes life fun.

batb 0 minutes ago in reply to Stephen Taylor

It’s good to stick up for a colleague, Stephen, but Kady’s not my colleague.

I’m just a regular, normal, tax-paying, hard-working, responsible, accountable Canadian who is rather sick and tired of the Ottawa beltway media and their anti-CPC, anti-Harper antics. They get paid to be anti-C/conservative, whereas I don’t.

IMO, it’s the CPC who stick up for the interests of the majority of hard-working Canadians, not the beltway media types or the members of the other three political parties who do a good job of grandstanding, saying they care for the average Canadian but proving, every day, that they don’t.

I was in a rush when I wrote the above post, or else I would have made these observations earlier:

Kady: “So, remember how the Conservative Party’s latest ad campaign — and, specifically, the spot filmed in the prime minister’s office — got me wonderingwhether it was against the rules that govern the use of parliamentary property for partisan purposes?

I would have thought it was O’Malley’s duty as a responsible journalist to check out the conclusions she comes to in print. She could easily have checked out, “specifically,” whether or not it was permissible for political ads to be filmed in the Prime Minister’s Office.

As it turns out, she didn’t bother, and came to her “own” anti-CPC conclusions, which would please the CBC higher-ups and the left-libbers who enjoy her contributions to the Mother Corps(e).

O’Malley’s been caught with her journalistic integrity compass off kilter, which is no surprise to those of us who’ve been monitoring the accuracy, or inaccuracy, of CBC-filtered “news” for years.

Whoops! Wrong thread. This comment is still up at the post below. I’ve got them mixed up.

I’ll cross post some of the other comments I’ve made here.

…they went on to discuss the “right wing bias” of fox news and the impending bias of Sun TV.

(have you actually watched any Faux News? and O’Reilly, Beck, etc)

If you’ve read any QMI newspapers (eg Suns, London Free Press), you’d know that the right-wing bias is already baked-in. So…not impending, it’s arrived.

But I am happy that the right wing will soon have a a news channel of their very own. Congratulations.

Use for political gain wouldn’t constitute “fair use” or the Cdn equivalent.

Would it have killed the CPC to simply pick up the phone and call CBC or CPAC to ask for clearance? It’s not like those outlets would have said no; we all know that if either CBC or CPAC refused, that would be an even bigger story for the CPC. The fact that no clearance request was made speaks volumes about the CPC’s continued arrogance toward and disrespect for journalism.

gabby, the “agency that approves Canadian advertising for Canadian television” has nothing to do with how the images were acquired or cleared. It only passes judgement on the final ad.

Use for political gain wouldn’t constitute “fair use” or the Cdn equivalent.

Would it have killed the CPC to simply pick up the phone and call CBC or CPAC to ask for clearance? It’s not like those outlets would have said no; we all know that if either CBC or CPAC refused, that would be an even bigger story for the CPC. The fact that no clearance request was made speaks volumes about the CPC’s continued arrogance toward and disrespect for journalism.

gabby, the “agency that approves Canadian advertising for Canadian television” has nothing to do with how the images were acquired or cleared. It only passes judgement on the final ad.

The need for independent, non-profit, high-integrity journalism is greater than ever.

The need for independent, non-profit, high-integrity journalism is greater than ever.

As I said earlier, my Canada doesn’t necessarily include _________ .”

You say that alot, and frankly that’s about the sh!ttiest, small-minded thing you could possibly say. Disagreement doesn’t grant you the right of banishment. No-one’s kicked you out of Canada for disagreeing with them, have they?

Canada includes ALL Canadians. My Canada exists, despite the crowings of small-minded single-issue zealots.

The Global warmists have prime time. The CBC has not given the other side 1% of the same air time.

Next, you’ll be asking ‘The Nature of Things’ to do a special on creationism.

Creationists and global warming theorists have no time for skeptics.

Skepticism being at the foundation of the scientific method.

Exactly I only ask for balance and allow ALL sides equal opportunity if the “state” is being asked to fund it.

Exactly I only ask for balance and allow ALL sides equal opportunity if the “state” is being asked to fund it.

So in your opinion the science and religion subject is settled?

Anything else we should not question?

So in your opinion the science and religion subject is settled?

Anything else we should not question?

Question everything. Including what your right-wing blogosphere is spoon-feeding you. Oops sorry, forgot you’re one of the feeders.

Religion and science are separate spheres. Religion has no place in science, and vice versa.

The bigotry of the nonbeliever is for me nearly as funny as the bigotry of the believer.

— Albert Einstein

Fortunately some of the greatest minds in science did not share anxiety or fear.

http://einsteinandreligion.com/atheism.html

A preponderance of data indicates that human activity is having an effect on the environment, including the climate. That’s the science. Even Harper gets this. Where the dispute arises (at least among the non-cretinous deniers) is the extent and rapidity of change, and what consequences might be expected and when.

Plenty of room for scientific skepticism. Not so much for right-wing dogma.

Are you implying that Einstein was a creationist?

I’d rather be anxious than unthinking.

Settle down, kenn2. I use this expression “alot”? ‘Don’t know what the heck you’re talking about.

You feel sorry for Kady, that’s clear. Go ahead. I find her to be an airhead and it doesn’t help that she’s working for my “favourite” media outlet, the CBC. Of course Canada includes all Canadians and Kady is a Canadian — but, she’s a shoddy journalist, always at the expense of the CPC. She didn’t do her homework and she should have. I wouldn’t shed any tears if she decided to take her journalistic talents elsewhere, especially if I don’t have to pay her salary.

I feel sorry for you… but not enough to ruin my day.

Do feel sorry for me. I have to pay CBC salaries.

I don’t feel sorry for you because you don’t seem to mind.

‘Waste of good money, I’m afraid.