“The availability of “easy cash” combined with the lack of
market discipline allows the CBC pay higher than market-value
salaries for its staff. For example, a producer at CTV is paid
$62,000 per annum while the same position at the CBC pays
$81,000. A broadcast technician at CTV can expect an annual
salary of $48,000. That same position at the CBC offers $79,000
to the successful job applicant…
…The CBC is no longer the only Canadian network offering….
Canadian programming. In today’s world of proliferating cable stations, there is no shortage of Canadian content….It is evident that Canadian networks are more than willing and able to provide that programming…
…We submit that the CBC inequitably represents the views
of all of its shareholders, that is to say, Canadian taxpayers. The
CBC is consistently criticized by conservatives for depicting the
world in left-of-centre terms. The difference is that the CBC belongs to, and is
funded by, all Canadians and is therefore under a special
obligation to adhere to a strict standard of neutrality in its news
presentation and reporting… 
…we believe that the CBC can survive without a yearly
infusion of unearned income. It will merely have to learn to
cope with this new set of circumstances through responsible
business practices and self-control – just as most hard working
Canadians live every day of their lives. The fiscal reality for the
CBC should be no different. “
 
 
 
David Krayden, Canadian Centre for Policy Studies
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

ELIMINATE THE REDUNDANT, LEFT PROMOTING STATE BROADCASTER       
 
If Canada had elected a legitimate, small-c fiscal conservative Prime Minister who didn’t consistently succumb to the left, he would eradicate the state radio & TV broadcaster that non-socialists Canadians do not trust to present the news equitably or impartially. It is a prejudiced, anti-American, pro-feminist pro-gay mortification to any Canadian who is not a far-left liberal.    
 
The “money draining” $1.16 billion a year grant is an embarrassment and humiliation that fails to reflect the social consensus of the majority of Canadians, but promulgates the talking points of the far left. For the unaccountable state broadcaster, informing the public means giving a hyped-up version of the NDP’s talking points, but to apportion hours scrutinizing, criticizing any conservative policy.     
 
Now that Canada has 4 national television networks plus regional networks, privately owned independent stations, and provincial stations as well as specialty and pay for view channels all in both French and English, satellite networks, thousands of radio stations and the internet producing Canadian content, the 1991 Canadian Broadcast Act should be re-written to eliminate the state broadcaster. The state broadcaster is   scripted by left-wingers and watched mostly by the far-left, but paid for my people who actually work for a living and pay taxes.
 
One of the numerous rationales for the exceptionally low quality of the state broadcaster’s regularly error overflowing “news” is its policy of sacrificing excellence in order to promote its crypto-communists propagandist agenda. The state broadcaster also adopted a quota system that desecrates tax dollars on an affirmative action hiring program for immigrants even with their habitually sub-substandard journalistic credentials.
 
The state broadcaster’s far left, vastly over-paid (as much as one-third more than private sector broadcasters) bureaucrats consistently produce “factoids”—rhetoric pretending to be facts but, in reality, are Orwellian spin reprinted from the NDP’s talking points. Even leftist media expert Mary Vipond agrees when she says: “ The CBC is also highly unionized, which increases its costs and decreases its flexibility”. These Cro-Magnon bureaucrats consistently delude the public, some times by intent and other times because they hire these semi-qualified, affirmative action government purported “journalists”.
 
As opposed to producing quality, informative, balanced, unbiased journalism, the Canadian tax payers are paying for a state broadcaster, with an extra large bureaucracy, that has an immense creditability gap, is guilty of oversimplification and “dumping down” news, neglects to distinguish between opinion and comments, favors form over content, uncompromisingly encourages anti-Americanism, and has no public confidence with anyone not on the radical left!
 
 
 
 

The CBC is way out of line and off the mark pulling this stunt. It’s really amusing how they tend to use  US examples when it’s convenient to their agenda. It’s also dishonest, far from factual.

Hopefully by now a majority of Canadians are onto them.

Kind of funny how the NRA funding the pro-gun lobby in Canada (even if it were true) is bad, yet foreign governments and foundations funding Suzuki is just fine.   Not much consistency here.

Another example of the CBC prostituting itself at the alter of the far left agenda. The insult of being forced to pay for this disgrace of a broadcaster just gets worse and worse. With far left political stunts like this the CBC do themselves no favours. 

Remind me again why I’m paying taxes to fund this special interest group that competes head to head with private companies. Better question, why are they forced to fund their competition? 

“This isn’t the first time the CBC has played politics in the long-gun registry debate.”
No, it isn’t. Last Sunday (Nov. 20) CBC aired the film Polytechnique based on the Montreal shootings.
http://www.cbc.ca/live/tonight-on-cbc-polytechnique.html 

Unlike some other commenters, I’m not for shutting down the CBC. What I do expect from a so-called NATIONAL broadcaster, however, is an honest & balanced presentation of various points of view, not a slanted POV. Airing a film like Polytechnique around the time that the gun registry is in the news can be interpreted as either crass commercialism of the worst kind, exploiting the nearing anniversary of the shootings, or an equally crass attempt to sway public opinion, using the dramatization to suggest that something similar may be repeated unless the registry survives.

“The availability of “easy cash” combined with the lack of
market discipline allows the CBC pay higher than market-value
salaries for its staff. For example, a producer at CTV is paid
$62,000 per annum while the same position at the CBC pays
$81,000. A broadcast technician at CTV can expect an annual
salary of $48,000. That same position at the CBC offers $79,000
to the successful job applicant…

Bullsh1t.

Both organizations have multiple levels of classifications and job requirements for the example positions , with different pay ranges for each level.

The rest of the post is equally off-base.

The CBC is consistently criticized by conservatives for depicting the world in left-of-centre [sic] terms.

That’s the closest thing to a real fact in the article. But it’s not ALL conservatives who are on the attack, just a small subset, and it has more to do with muzzling in-depth reporting and criticism.

Full to burstin’ with distortion and lies.

Dec 6 is the 22nd anniversary of the École Polytechnique massacre. You genuinely think they chose Nov 20 more for its potential influence on the LGR issue? Wow.

What don’t you understand about “… can be interpreted as either …”?

Have you never noticed Law & Order episodes with a story line very similar to a real-life issue or situation? The major networks, be they American or Canadian, do indeed draw from headline news & schedule programs & films accordingly

Perhaps I’m just different but I’ve never got this deifying of the Polytechnique women.  For centuries “women and children first” was the mantra – men were jsut expected to die if there was any choice at all.    It was all about their gender.   The one guy who had the temerity to jump into a lifeboat during the Titanic sinking was disgraced and literally hounded to suicide.    Suddenly, there is a single incident of women being targeted for their gender and people speak in hushed voices and try to change the laws and freedoms of the land – rather like the US did after 9/11.    Bullsh*t.  I always thought the rational of the US second amendment was a bit over the top but watching what is going on in Syria, and what went on in Libya and Egypt, is a bit more sobering – maybe they have a point.    In fact, perhaps Ben Franklin’s adage “those who would give up some of their freedom, for greater security, deserve neither”  has a bit more of a ring of truth after the Arab Spring.  Are people who want to infringe on the rights of law abiding citizens, real people?  I’m as open to debate as the next guy but sometimes things should be self evident.  Its like racism, -  debate simply gives obscenity a soapbox.

Perhaps I’m just different but I’ve never got this deifying of the Polytechnique women.  For centuries “women and children first” was the mantra – men were jsut expected to die if there was any choice at all.    It was all about their gender.   The one guy who had the temerity to jump into a lifeboat during the Titanic sinking was disgraced and literally hounded to suicide.    Suddenly, there is a single incident of women being targeted for their gender and people speak in hushed voices and try to change the laws and freedoms of the land – rather like the US did after 9/11.    Bullsh*t.  I always thought the rational of the US second amendment was a bit over the top but watching what is going on in Syria, and what went on in Libya and Egypt, is a bit more sobering – maybe they have a point.    In fact, perhaps Ben Franklin’s adage “those who would give up some of their freedom, for greater security, deserve neither”  has a bit more of a ring of truth after the Arab Spring.  Are people who want to infringe on the rights of law abiding citizens, real people?  I’m as open to debate as the next guy but sometimes things should be self evident.  Its like racism, -  debate simply gives obscenity a soapbox.

Your slavish acceptance of CBC’s scheduling, and complete belief in their unutterable balance is not an indication of an open, nor even a questioning mind.   Strange that you have such rigid and unshakable belief in your position that you fail to even debate or consider an alternative – and yet you claim that is what dismays you most about others on this board.    Pot, kettle, black.   

I wouldn’t necessarily call it “deifying” the victims, but I suppose the sheer number of victims gave the crime even more significance than if there had been only one victim. Questions were raised about the passivity of the male students, the delay of the police in arriving at the scene as well as the delay in entering the building, and like any other senseless crime, the motivation and sanity of the perpetrator, as well as hid background and childhood. The idea that anyone would kill other human beings because of their gender is just as abhorrent as killing others because of their race, religion, social status, etc.

Occam’s Razor, Doug. The simplest explanation is usually the right one. But it’s sometimes amusing to see the lengths you people will go to paint the CBC as some left-wing cabal whose every decision is made to further a political agenda.

Mark Lepine picked the massacre date, Harper picked the date to torpedo the LGR. If you’re unhappy with timings, take it up with them.

Hi Kenny two shoes, see you’ve done your drive through duty setting us straight.

I’d like to know who is “muzzling in-depth reporting and criticism”?

Gabby nailed it. Significant single events sometimes become catalysts or lightning rods for longstanding issues.

Lepine was a nutter, but in some ways the massacre highlighted that there were (are?) pockets of resentment against the elevation of women to the same status as men, despite their equality under the law.

sometimes things should be self evident.   Sure… except that people seldom come to that conclusion until the “self-evident” change has been fought for and debated and won by their precedents. (who are usually derided by their contemporaries as ‘progressives’)

Gabby nailed it. Significant single events sometimes become catalysts or lightning rods for longstanding issues.

Lepine was a nutter, but in some ways the massacre highlighted that there were (are?) pockets of resentment against the elevation of women to the same status as men, despite their equality under the law.

sometimes things should be self evident.   Sure… except that people seldom come to that conclusion until the “self-evident” change has been fought for and debated and won by their precedents. (who are usually derided by their contemporaries as ‘progressives’)

“Significant single events sometimes become catalysts or lightning rods for longstanding issues.”
You’ve read something into what I said that I didn’t actually say. 

“Significant single events sometimes become catalysts or lightning rods for longstanding issues.”
You’ve read something into what I said that I didn’t actually say. 

the sheer number of victims gave the crime even more significance…Questions were raised about …

…you didn’t say that?

you are.

(I love that the undisputed master of the throwaway troll is calling me ‘drive-through’.)

you are.

(I love that the undisputed master of the throwaway troll is calling me ‘drive-through’.)

Gee, had no idea I had so much power!

You’ve interpreted my comment, which was about violence perpetrated against ANY group, as being solely about the victimization of women — in your words, “lightning rods for longstanding issues” i.e. feminist aspirations. My comment was not a politically charged comment and I would appreciate if you didn’t make it so. Or, to put it in the vernacular, don’t put your words in my mouth.

I said no such thing. If you falsely equate “longstanding issues” with “feminist aspirations”… that’s your own shortcoming.

I merely echoed your point that this particular event stood out, and  as such becomes a rallying point, for issues which include those you yourself listed.

Sheesh.

I don’t buy it. Since Polytechnique there have been a few incident where multiple deaths have arise which almost wiped out basketball and Hockey teams.   What was their “signifigance”?  Why is it so tragic because Polytechnique were women?   Moreover, why were the “men” derided for their “passivity”?  Equality means just that – women now have the right to charge armed nutters just as well as men, and after all, it was them being attacked.  I’ll grant that the teams that were wiped out were a result of an accident vice an act of intent, but when you wipe out a basketball team, at least a boy’s one, its still a gender driven event, are they going to be lighting candles and worshiping them in 20 years?  I’d bet not.   As I pointed out, for decades it wasn’t considered abhorrent that men were supposed to volunteer to die, it was just the way it was.  Equal rights is a sword with two edges. 

Lepine was a nutter, but in some ways the massacre highlighted that
there were (are?) pockets of resentment against the elevation of women
to the same status as men, despite their equality under the law.

There is and always will be resentment on both sides of the coin.  No sane male ever walked into a divorce court and expected equal treatment.  Like the “woman and children first” thing he knew going in, or should have, that he was about to be raped.   In fact, it used to be actually codified in law that he would have to “maintain the woman in the lifestyle to which she was accustomed”  Unfortunately, if one person has to be “maintained” dividing a paycheque in two gives a mathematical certainty of the other getting screwed, and even now people “tut tut” when a guy splits from a wealthy woman and expects what the law is supposed to demand if it were indeed “equal”.   As you say, some men hate the elevation of women, but trust me, some women hate men just as much and detest any chance of change to the law to reflect true equality.  I’m related to one.

(who are usually derided by their contemporaries as ‘progressives’)

“Progessives” was a term dreamt up by a Liberal hack (sorry I can’t remember his name at the moment, it may have been Lawrence Martin, but very much remember reading his idea and campaign) who wanted to try and “brand” themselves as forward looking and the Conservatives as regressive. The NDP camped onto it trying to sell the Anything But Conservative, objective of “all of us are right and they are wrong alone”.   When I think of progressive, the Green concept of Carbon eating algae, paint on solar cells, etc, everything is geared toward the types of technology the Conservatives embrace and reward (even if granted, it is only after some proof).   The most regressive, “new ideas can’t work we have to go back to Kyoto, the sky is falling” dweebs are the people who call themselves “Progessive”  Orwellian isn’t it?  Doublespeak indeed.  

CBC’s market share has plunged over the last 20 years and is lower than any of the other “national” stations.  You have the distinction of being about the only one I know of who considers them “unbiased” and their own comments have pretty much agreed with, that even to the point of sanctioning one of their reporters for “feeding” MPs.      If Occam’s razor is upheld here, I’m afraid the die would be cast, but not in their favour.   Frankly, you only have to spend a bit of time on one of their board to see pretty clearly that they have pandered to the Tin foil hat crowd and the fringe lunatics. I don’t think for a minute that everybody has to believe, as I genuinely do, that Harper is the best PM we’ve had since WW II for a variety of reasons.    I’m well aware of things his government has done that I consider immoral – supporting occupation is one – but arguments on the CBC boards lack even the most basic coherence and justification.  It’s like listening to the old rants of Jerry Falwell spewing hate while pretending to be a “good Christian”.  Maybe they serve a purpose if the give the nutters a chance to blow off steam, but as a new’s organization, they are pretty bad.

The term ‘progressive’ predates even your venerable self.

(more than a few tinfoil hats and bent arguments here, too…)

The CBC is an order of magnitude bigger and more diverse than the slice that you’re choosing to do battle with, and even if I were to agree (I don’t) that your bias claims had real merit, it would still leave the vast majority of the organization’s output unfairly slandered.

Every TV outlet’s market share has declined over the last 20 years. And so what if one of the multitude of fake forensic shows beats out the “Fifth Estate” or “Nature of Things”? The audience  for the CBC’s program output is still significant, inside and outside of Canada.

It’s kind of disgusting to watch Quebecor and the NCC and other right-wing fronts try to manufacture hatred for the CBC.

“What was their “signifigance”?  Why is it so tragic because Polytechnique were women?”
You answered your own question, didn’t you?. The deaths of sports teams weren’t intended outcomes, at least that I’m aware of, whereas the Polytechnique murders were. That differentiates the two cases: the one accidental, the other intentional, based on gender.

But you’re right, the incident has indeed been politicized, co-opted, used as a symbol for the feminist cause, but I wouldn’t go so far as to say “deifying” the victims. Marc Lépine’s own suicide note was the source of that politicization. Had all 14 victims been male, I would find the crime equally horrific. That is what I meant in my previous comment, which is why I objected to Kenn2 interpreting it as some kind of political statement on my part.

Getting back to the topic of the CBC (or any other media, for that matter) trying to influence debate of public issues …
http://www.revparl.ca/english/issue.asp?param=61&art=33 
“… Canada does have a sophisticated and professional press gallery. But it has easily left itself open to reproach with the newspaper wars, cutbacks, convergence and the instant analysis of live TV. This has led to fewer voices, more editorial opinion permeating new [sic] coverage, and more “gotcha” or testosterone-driven reporting that is often less fair and dispassionate, and less oriented to public service that [sic] any journalistic ideal. In a nutshell reporters today too often tend to focus on the base ambitions of power-hungry politicians rather than the lofty ideals of public policy debates.

It has become a chicken and egg dilemma. MPs feel they will be rewarded with more face time on TV or front page newspaper coverage by being negative or controversial and using a clever turn of phrase. The parties plan their Question Period attack based on what will get most news coverage rather than what would best serve the public. As a result reporters often fall into the trap of simply covering the light, trite and bright, and the outrageous. Why should they bother to dig into policy if the politicians do not bother with it either.

Unfortunately, both politicians and reporters are often guilty of intellectual laziness and a tendency to torque issues. And they would do well to indulge in some deep soul-searching about the role they can and should play in a functioning parliamentary democracy especially at a time of a growing public cynicism and apathy toward politics.”

By Susan Murray, former senior parliamentary reporter with CBC Radio in Ottawa. She eventually left that post to become Scott Brison’s communications director.

Despite the risk of again incurring your wrath… thanks for that link. I think it’s a fairly honest appraisal, that applies as much now as it did in 2004 when it was written, during a Liberal government.

Unfortunately, I expect most here will dismiss it because Ms Murray was a CBC’er and Mr Brison her new boss is a Liberal, so she must not be capable of honest introspection, amirite?

Wrath? My goodness, but you are a hypersensitive one!

As I’ve said elsewhere, I tend to judge each article / op-ed and its writer on his/her own merit. When she used to guest on the Don Newman show, Ms. Murray often demonstrated the same kind of tactics she faulted in others in that article. Despite that, what she said in that article made sense to me, ergo the link to it. And the fact she’s a former CBCer gives even more weight to her opinion, in my view, because of the very fact she used to work for a broadcaster which is largely anti-conservative in tone.

See, the thing is, life would be so much simpler if people, be they journalists, pundits, simple commenters on blogs, or politicians — people who pretend & protest they’re non-partisan / not ideological — if they were to admit up front that they are indeed partisan and ideological. The truth shall set us all free.

Medicine is a profession. Your doctor may not like you, but they are still professionally obligated to give you a high standard of care. If that’s not the case, your Dr will be called out and punished.

Journalism is a profession, and a professional journalist is usually able to report honestly and accurately, regardless of personal feelings. If a person, or a whole network have a bias problem, I expect that their peers and the journalism schools would all be calling them out on it.

(a glaring Canadian exception is of course SUN TV, who are proudly and boisterously biased)

If CBC, CTV or Global had a genuine bias problem… we’d have heard about it already, and not just from the less respectable corners of the right-wing blogosphere.

A partisan, of course, acknowledges none of this. A genuine partisan will defend their cause by all means,  regardless of ethics, rules or truth. Handy people to have around when you’re forming a resistance movement during a war… not so useful when a rational honest and fair judgement is required.

Don’t accept charges of bias from partisans. Find out what the professionals think. The truth will set us all free.

Quite true.  The attempt to use the word to “brand” the Liberals however, does not.

Quite true.  The attempt to use the word to “brand” the Liberals however, does not.

There is a difference between qualifying something and answering it and I understand completely that you find killing of any type abhorrent.  But my point was the double standard.  If the killings at Polytechnique had been all men, wiped out by some nutbar woman incensed by a percieved (or real) slight, we would have all shaken our heads and wondered what set the poor thing off.   We sure as hell wouldn’t be holding candlelight vigils 20 years later.  Likewise, when some male beats his wife, we (myself included) tend to immediately regard him as a savage bastard – but children have a far higher chance of being killed my their mothers. And when that happens, most of us don’t view it the same at all.   We react with pity to the woman, and anger to the man. Sentencing is different as well for a male who kills his wife and a woman who kills her children. Abhorrence not withstanding, the repeated and very public Polytechnique circus is now a Political and Special interest statement, using the dead for all they can.   It’s repugnant.

(more than a few tinfoil hats and bent arguments here, too…)

The fact that you don’t like or agree with an argument does not detract from its presentation or validity.    Stephen tends to run a pretty tight ship here, though yes, it is a Conservative blog.  I’m speaking about the hyperinflated shrieking invective found on most of the CBC political boards (and more than a few G&M ones as well)

Every TV outlet’s market share has declined over the last 20 years.

No.  Market share does not refer to the total numbers of TVs being watched but of the share of that total market – CBC’s is in the toilet.

Really, it’s little wonder. While you may be convinced of its balance, even other news stations are not – they have seen the niche and crawled into it – and gained market share.    CBC has become not only biased but sensationalistic as its quality continues to drop – check this one out-  http://www.cbc.ca/news/yourcommunity/2011/11/post-78.html

Christmas cards from a Gun club in the US is big news for CBC to dwell on what is appropriate?   Siply part of their “We’re so good and the yanks are so bad” schtick.   Not intended for a very intelligent audience – mind you perhaps that too is reflected in their declining audience – perhaps a sivler lining?   At the end of the day, do we get $1.16 billion in benefit out of the CBC?  Would it be better spent in Health care, R&D research or education?  The deficit perahps?  I tend to think it could and clearly there are a lot of people who think along those same lines.    If Toronto wants its own TV station by all means pay for it and get it up and running – but don’t come to us for paying for it as it doesn’t serve our needs.

(more than a few tinfoil hats and bent arguments here, too…)

The fact that you don’t like or agree with an argument does not detract from its presentation or validity.    Stephen tends to run a pretty tight ship here, though yes, it is a Conservative blog.  I’m speaking about the hyperinflated shrieking invective found on most of the CBC political boards (and more than a few G&M ones as well)

Every TV outlet’s market share has declined over the last 20 years.

No.  Market share does not refer to the total numbers of TVs being watched but of the share of that total market – CBC’s is in the toilet.

Really, it’s little wonder. While you may be convinced of its balance, even other news stations are not – they have seen the niche and crawled into it – and gained market share.    CBC has become not only biased but sensationalistic as its quality continues to drop – check this one out-  http://www.cbc.ca/news/yourcommunity/2011/11/post-78.html

Christmas cards from a Gun club in the US is big news for CBC to dwell on what is appropriate?   Siply part of their “We’re so good and the yanks are so bad” schtick.   Not intended for a very intelligent audience – mind you perhaps that too is reflected in their declining audience – perhaps a sivler lining?   At the end of the day, do we get $1.16 billion in benefit out of the CBC?  Would it be better spent in Health care, R&D research or education?  The deficit perahps?  I tend to think it could and clearly there are a lot of people who think along those same lines.    If Toronto wants its own TV station by all means pay for it and get it up and running – but don’t come to us for paying for it as it doesn’t serve our needs.

If you actually had a handle on how to read TV ratings or market share, you’d have supported your assertion, instead of acting like you misunderstood me.

The CBC website is big, with lotsa stories. Stephen must be searching it daily for evidence of malfeasance and he comes up with… this? Oh noes! btw, these Christmas cards have not passed unnoticed in other circles either.  Socialist plot, or what?

Despite Ezra Levant and SUN News and the NCCs and even your efforts, you all haven’t yet been able to manufacture significant opposition to the CBC. Nobody outside of the choir is singing along.

And an economic argument from you has no more traction,  after your  recent “Marie Antoinette” stance on Toronto’s issues, while merely fluttering your eyelids when I brought up the subsidies and tax breaks being lavished on  resource industries  currently enjoying record profits. Subsidizing YOUR friends and causes is just fine, apparently.

The fact that you don’t like or agree with an argument does not detract from its presentation or validity. 

You really need to heed your own advice on this issue.

“Journalism is a profession …”No consensus on that. The fact I can find articles like this one http://prorev.com/jcraft.htm Why journalism isn’t a profession [1970]Or this onehttp://www.markbernstein.org/Jul09/OnTheProfessionofJournalis.html On The Profession of Journalism [July 12, 2009]“Doctors and lawyers practice a profession. Journalists have a job. …”Or thishttp://open.salon.com/blog/alynch/2009/06/03/is_journalism_a_profession JUNE 3, 2009 10:03PM”Is Journalism a Profession?… Where are the test, accreditation, minimum education requirements, apprenticeships or other methods on a supervised honing of the craft given today’s economy and the publics [sic] greed for scandal, ammunition to hate or mistrust others and to be mushrooms living in a cocoon where events on the other side of the world are of no importance unless they impact our pocketbooks where we live and work? …”Or thishttp://cjms.fims.uwo.ca/issues/04-01/godkin.pdf in which divergent views on whether journalism is a profession are presented. Some practice their craft very honourably, others not so much. Some have degrees, others do not. Holding a degree or not having one doesn’t necessarily translate into objectivity or non-partisanship. ”If CBC, CTV or Global had a genuine bias problem… we’d have heard about it already, and not just from the less respectable corners of the right-wing blogosphere.”Ah, but we have heard of it time and again, except there are none so blind as those who will not see. But of course, condescension is an effective blinder.

Oh crap!

The site no longer allows for paragraphs!?!

Double c!!!

All but the first links are broken, and that was an opinion piece.  I suspect the rest might be too, but I’d like to see that Waterloo one if you could repost or edit. 

You can be forgiven for not knowing about the RTNDA or similar organizations, but you must know that there ARE several reputable university depts of journalism. So, yes there are people with yardsticks out there, taking measurements and flagging dubious practitioners.

Anyway – think of the argument you’re trying to make here – that journalists AREN’T professional, can’t be relied upon to do a proper job, don’t have to be ethical… If that was truly the case, it would be an even stronger argument against relying on for-profit commercial broadcast journalism, which is dependent on the whims of moneyed interests, and in favour of an INDEPENDENT non-profit broadcaster, with stable arms-length state funding, that cannot be strongarmed by either private or government influence. Broadcasters like the CBC. Or BBC. Or NHK. Or DW, Radio Nederland…

I guess Stephen’s new format doesn’t allow for paragraphs AND multiple links, so I’ll have to give them out piecemeal

http://www.markbernstein.org/Jul09/OnTheProfessionofJournalis.html On The Profession of Journalism [July 12, 2009]“Doctors and lawyers practice a profession. Journalists have a job. …”

http://open.salon.com/blog/alynch/2009/06/03/is_journalism_a_profession 
JUNE 3, 2009 10:03PM
“Is Journalism a Profession?
… Where are the test, accreditation, minimum education requirements, apprenticeships or other methods on a supervised honing of the craft given today’s economy and the publics [sic] greed for scandal, ammunition to hate or mistrust others and to be mushrooms living in a cocoon where events on the other side of the world are of no importance unless they impact our pocketbooks where we live and work? …”

http://cjms.fims.uwo.ca/issues/04-01/godkin.pdf 
This presents divergent views on whether journalism is a profession. 

Thank you. I’ll read’em all.

“… that was an opinion piece …”
Wasn’t Susan Murray’s an opinion piece too? You like that one fine. And aren’t your posts opinion pieces too?  If well argued, an opinion piece can be as credible as a multiplication table.

“… think of the argument you’re trying to make here – that journalists AREN’T professional, can’t be relied upon to do a proper job, don’t have to be ethical… ”
You really must desist in trying to put words in my mouth.
In the first place, there’s a difference between acting in a professional manner — a taxi driver can act in a professional manner — and being the member of an accredited profession, like the ones listed here:
http://www.cicic.ca/672/accredited-professional-programs-in-canada.canada

Secondly, I guess you missed the part where I wrote “Some [i.e. journalists] practice their craft very honourably, others not so much.” Geez, I hate to have to quote myself!

I’ll have to look into RTNDA … but “state broadcaster” reminds me of TASS (Telegraph Agency of the Soviet Union) and Pravda. No, I’m not saying the CBC is like them, but I prefer variety rather than sole sourcing. 

See, the thing is, life would be so much simpler if people, be they
journalists, pundits, simple commenters on blogs, or politicians —
people who pretend & protest they’re non-partisan / not ideological
– if they were to admit up front that they are indeed partisan and
ideological.

You’re arguing that journalists can’t do a fair and balanced job because of their leanings, are you not? I’m arguing the counter – that most journalists at the major broadcasters can  be professional about the job of reporting. I would argue further that the biggest source of bias is the head office, which is why an arms-length broadcaster is furthest removed from coercion by government or corporate interests.

Britain Ireland, Germany, Netherlands, Sweden, Austria, Italy, Japan… have state-funded broadcasters. The US does not. Guess which country’s news viewers have the deepest distrust of their news media?

See, the thing is, life would be so much simpler if people, be they
journalists, pundits, simple commenters on blogs, or politicians —
people who pretend & protest they’re non-partisan / not ideological
– if they were to admit up front that they are indeed partisan and
ideological.

You’re arguing that journalists can’t do a fair and balanced job because of their leanings, are you not? I’m arguing the counter – that most journalists at the major broadcasters can  be professional about the job of reporting. I would argue further that the biggest source of bias is the head office, which is why an arms-length broadcaster is furthest removed from coercion by government or corporate interests.

Britain Ireland, Germany, Netherlands, Sweden, Austria, Italy, Japan… have state-funded broadcasters. The US does not. Guess which country’s news viewers have the deepest distrust of their news media?

I already conceded the point that the Polytechnique murders were co-opted by the feminist movement. If all the victims had been males, we might not be holding candlelight vigils, but there would probably have been the same demands to tighten up firearms controls. 

The commemorations have become part of our culture. We — a general we — seemingly feel more connected to someone we’ve never met than to someone who lives next door. Why, I don’t know. Look at the outpouring of emotion over the deaths of some celebrities, with attendant flowers, poems, tears, etc. 

Not to belittle such a visible manifestation of grief … but isn’t the Highway of Heroes a somewhat similar outward expression of grief over the death of a stranger? 

Anyway, I think I’ve said about all I have to say on this topic … thanks for your input.

Well put – I agree with the co-opting point – it bothers me because it degrades their memory.    The outpouring over celebrities also bothers me – in part.    Lady Diana had done some pretty remarkable things and used her status to gain results – I have no problem with people grieving her – her life and accomplishments were public.  Jack Layton or Michael Jackson?  Gimme a break.   Highway of Hero’s is a different one for me and I’d have to give it some thought.  One one hand, those guys (and Capt Goddard) died giving their life for the Country and our beliefs and values – so yes.  On the other hand, I was in the military for almost 36 years and so I’m very close to that – it would be difficult to separate the emotion from losing a brother in arms enough to make an objective opinion.

For Kenn2 — my reply here, because I don’t like ever-skinnier responses.

“You’re arguing that journalists can’t do a fair and balanced job because of their leanings, are you not?”
No, I’m not. It’s not their leanings it’s the fact they don’t admit to having ANY leanings at all. I’m arguing that many media personalities do not admit to having a particular political point of view and that even though they deny having that POV, it comes through to the audience, whether they — the media — want to admit it or not. And that particular political POV is primarily anti-conservative. Some of them excel at what they do — it’s just that what they do lacks objectivity. 

When I first started commenting on blogs, I dug up some studies showing that the majority of journalists lean left. I would need to dig for that info once again.

See, especially now with the advent of blogging and social media, the lines between strict reporting of the day’s or week’s events and editorializing  i.e. the media personalities’ reaction to and opinion on events — those lines have been blurred.

The real reporter should be using the 5 Ws, with neutral or denotative language. Just the bare facts.
The ersatz reporter appeals to emotions, sometimes uses ridicule, and connotative language, so that some reports actually come across as editorials. 

To compound the problem, some accusations on either side of the political spectrum confuse the role of the reporter with that of the op-ed writer, the editorialist, the pundit, the polemicist, etc. all of whom are paid to give their opinions.

I think we’re talking past each other. One more brief try…

It’s not their leanings it’s the fact they don’t admit to having
ANY leanings at all. I’m arguing that many media personalities do not
admit to having a particular political point of view and that even
though they deny having that POV, it comes through to the audience,
whether they — the media — want to admit it or not. And that
particular political POV is primarily anti-conservative. Some of them
excel at what they do — it’s just that what they do lacks objectivity.

Let’s step back and examine some context. Consider the following:
- the majority of journalists have at least some post-secondary education and it’s usually in journalism or other (… wait for it…) “liberal arts”. Joke aside, you know what I mean – humanities, history, poli-sci, languages.
- the majority of university-educated people, especially in the liberal arts, poll as being center or a little to the left of mainstream opinion. Make of that what you will, but it’s generally accepted as fact.

If we accept your argument as presented, in this context…. it’s game over, you have won. Any given journalist is likely to be left of center; the whole media is pinko, storm the barricades, off with their heads. Balanced media is impossible.

If you’re still with me…
- most journalists, especially the senior ones at the larger outlets, are professionals. maybe not to the letter of the law, but certainly in the sense that they know how to do their job objectively and ethically, that there are commonly held principles and practices.

It’s my contention that the majority of experienced reporters, at CBC or elsewhere, are competent journalists, whose professionalism overcomes their own personal opinions. We can waste 3 lifetimes calling out little things like these stupid gun-nut Christmas cards, but there is really no incontrovertible evidence that CBC News is, generally speaking, incompetent or significantly and unfairly biased.

You may think so (and others have been persuaded to think so), but it ain’t so. If you lean right, a centrist will look lefty.

Last comment (to anyone). Please give examples of an unbiased journalist or show or publication.  Who represents the ideal? Bonus marks for explaining how their lack of bias is evident.

I’m done. LizJ, how bout a pithy comment to close the thread out?

Keep funding what I want to hear!

If you actually had a handle on how to read TV ratings or market share

Pass on what I missed and I’ll let the folks at UBC know they’re deficient, the guy at the front of the class was the marketing guy for Starbucks and Irish spring campaigns – where did you get our maketing education?

you all haven’t yet been able to manufacture significant opposition to the CBC.

Lol – well there’s a lot more of it out there than just on this board,  strange you should get so breathless over it then…

after your  recent “Marie Antoinette” stance on Toronto’s issues.  Subsidizing YOUR friends and causes is just fine, apparently

You told us that; a. there was no fat in Toronto,  B. Toronto desperately needs more libraries than NY, and every other publicly paid service yet acknowledged Toronto was in a deficit to the tune of $770M.  It has the largest municipal tax base in the country – when every other city in the country needs money, they raise taxes – that’s what you lefties always like to do.  A bit different when its you paying, what?.   I don’t care how you do it, but just don’t look outside city limits for the money.  As to subsidies, hell yeah.  Lets cut them to the oil industry and see what happens at gas at $6 a liter.  And while we’re at it, we’d expect those cars coming out of Oshawa,  Toronto and Windor to be sold tous out here at half price too.  After all, what’s good for the goose…. 

ooo, my bad. Have your UBC friend pop by and back up your argument, because you haven’t.

a)  close enough.
b) ok, I’ll give you libraries. now, what about public transit, regional transit for the millions who commute to Toronto, the support of the many immigrants who flock to Toronto, social assistance and housing which was downloaded onto Toronto, the cost of the botched “megacity” amalgamation which was dumped on Toronto, no plebiscite or anything. And so on.

Thing is, enough taxes are being raised, it’s just that they leave the city for Ottawa and Queen’s Park, and never return. To the tune of many billions a year. Of the industrialized nations, Canada provides the least federal support of urban infrastructure.

Lets cut them to the oil industry and see what happens at gas at $6 a liter.

This is when I knew you’re completely out to lunch. Canada’s oil industry subsidies don’t much influence our at-the pump price … not when we can and do still buy OPEC oil at market price.

Oil is probably the most in-demand resource in the world, oil companies are making copious profits even in a worldwide recession… and you think the companies need subsidies? Socialism for corporate profit, free-market discipline for Toronto?

It is simply insane that in a free market, you have to subsidize a company to find and sell the world’s most demanded product, that we happen to have alot of. Of course I realize that realpolitik kicks in , and there’s the unspoken necessity of supplying the US with oil at OPEC prices, even though our cost to produce is higher than OPEC’s. Not quite what we’d hoped for with NAFTA…

In case you didn’t know, the average car price is damn near cost, anyway. Any lower and the auto makers would be subsidizing you. Nice rhetorical flourish, tho.

(omg – it’s mini-me!)

Actually, it’s more to do with stop destroying things.

Sorry, I don’t do “pithy” — which explains my moniker.

I was going to let you have the last word, but something discussed yesterday & today on the radio changed my mind.First of all …• In your reply, you wrongly assume that I question journalists’ education and/or their competence. Like in any walk of life, there are some who excel and some who suck, to use the vernacular, independent of their political leaning, their education, their training, or their experience. What I question and will continue to question is journalists’ and the entire media industry’s objectivity. That lack of objectivity leads to a concurrent lack of accuracy. Allow me to cite just two very recent and perhaps trivial examples, but indicative of the prevailing mind-set among some media.1. A Quebec Service Canada bureaucrat (Marc Simoneau) sent out a memo telling staff that no Christmas decorations be put up in public areas in the Service Canada Montreal headquarters, and that decorations should be limited to “private” work areas, away from the public’s eyes.Yesterday, two (anglo) local talk shows expressed their outrage, their blame directed partly at the bureaucrat but mostly at the government. Of course, opposition MPs got in on the act, thundering their disapproval during Friday’s QP, Minister Finley becoming their target. Read Denis Coderre’s and Alex Boulerice’s “questions” here: http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=41&Ses=1&DocId=5300715This morning, on Rad-Can, the blame was directed squarely at the PM, as if that directive had come down directly from him.So, from the bureaucrat’s desk, to Minister Finley’s. to the PM’s desk went the silly memo.Not only is it ridiculous to suggest that Stephen Harper (shame on that anti-Christmas Grinch!) sent out that directive, but how do those making those assumptions reconcile that with their usual contention that he’s an ultra-religious Evangelical?2. The second example involves humorists and the role of political satire (part of the media at large). The example is from Radio-Canada, involving a discussion among the appropriately-named moderator Joël Le Bigot, comedian/actor/journalist/professor/and radio & TV host Marc Laurendeau, and La Presse political cartoonist Serge Chapleau, creator of the satirical TV show on current affairs Et Dieu créa Laflaque. I have no quarrel with humorists deflating politicians’ egos and pointing out what they think are societal ills. But the gist of that trio’s discussion — Chapleau’s was more nuanced — was that the torrent of scorn pelting politicians wasn’t sustained enough to bring about change. Of course, never mind that the change they seek is not necessarily what the rest of the population wants or needs and never mind the kind of character assassination their derision causes.Perhaps the media should keep this in mind:“In things a moderation keep; Kings [and the media] ought to shear, not skin, their sheep.” Robert Herrick

Oh, for pete’s sake!

Paragraphs are important! Let me use them!!!

(you know, you can edit your post to adjust spacings etc, right?)

I appreciate your anecdotes, but…

1) Talk radio isn’t journalism. It’s usually just populism, and geared to provoke. And it’s practiced almost exclusively by private broadcasters. So, nothing to do with journalism,  the CBC or the attacks on it.

2) Satirists have no duty other than to stay on the good side of libel and obscenity laws. Oh, and to make us laugh. Occasionally, they draw our attention to a genuine problem. Again, nothing to do with journalism.

Same for that interview show. It has no other purpose than to engage the listener’s interest, and the personalities are expected to do so. You already knew how the interviewer slants. Sharp opinions and controversy are staples of the format. Still not journalism…

I fear you haven’t really advanced your argument. But I clearly get that you feel that most of the media isn’t making any effort to reach YOU and your interests. Well, the world always fawns over the young, but there is programming out there for the mature, thinking mind… one just has to dig a little harder. You’ll find more thoughtful and positive programming on the alternative non commercial networks like PBS, TVO (Ontario) … and CBC, especially Radio One.

(you know, you can edit your post to adjust spacings etc, right?)

I appreciate your anecdotes, but…

1) Talk radio isn’t journalism. It’s usually just populism, and geared to provoke. And it’s practiced almost exclusively by private broadcasters. So, nothing to do with journalism,  the CBC or the attacks on it.

2) Satirists have no duty other than to stay on the good side of libel and obscenity laws. Oh, and to make us laugh. Occasionally, they draw our attention to a genuine problem. Again, nothing to do with journalism.

Same for that interview show. It has no other purpose than to engage the listener’s interest, and the personalities are expected to do so. You already knew how the interviewer slants. Sharp opinions and controversy are staples of the format. Still not journalism…

I fear you haven’t really advanced your argument. But I clearly get that you feel that most of the media isn’t making any effort to reach YOU and your interests. Well, the world always fawns over the young, but there is programming out there for the mature, thinking mind… one just has to dig a little harder. You’ll find more thoughtful and positive programming on the alternative non commercial networks like PBS, TVO (Ontario) … and CBC, especially Radio One.

“you know, you can edit your post to adjust spacings etc, right?“
No, actually I can’t. That function is apparently available only to those who sign up with Disqus. I usually compose my comments off-line, then copy & paste them here. Sometimes they come out like I’ve written them, with paragraphs & all, other times not, despite the fact I do the same thing. To paraphrase the Bard (with abject apologies to him): 
“The fault, dear Brutus, is not in my formatting, But in the layout, to which I’m but an underling.”

I’ll address the rest of your reply later.

Better late than never …

1. “Talk radio isn’t journalism …”
I never said it was. I appreciate your efforts to “educate” me, but being a remonstrant pupil, may I remind you that I alluded to “the media at large”? Not “at large” as in “The prisoner escaped, he’s at large” but as in “as a whole” or “in a general way.” Maybe you would have understood if I’d used the term “mass media”?

And the rest of your #1 lesson? The CBC’s Power & Politics, the At Issue panel, Cross Country CheckUp are three examples of “talk” shows, although not all three allow for immediate audience participation/reaction, except on their websites. Have you never heard of CPAC’s This Week and Goldhawk?

2. “Same for that interview show. It has no other purpose than to engage the listener’s interest, and the personalities are expected to do so. You already knew how the interviewer slants. Sharp opinions and controversy are staples of the format. Still not journalism…”
Gee, such harsh criticism of Power & Politics, CTV’s Question Period and Power Politics! I haven’t seen enough episodes of Global’s The West Block to be able to include it in the group.

“I clearly get that you feel that most of the media isn’t making any effort to reach YOU and your interests.”
Finally! An admission that the conservative POV is not reflected in many media outlets, be they public or private. That’s my and many conservatives’ beef with CBC, isn’t it? We pay for it through our taxes but we don’t see ourselves reflected as a part of Canada, except in a negative way, despite the CBC’s stated mission:
http://www.cbc.radio-canada.ca/speeches/19990421.shtml 
“At that time, the government wanted to create a place where Canadians from all regions and all walks of life could tell their stories to each other; a place where all Canadians could also discover the world. In a word, a mirror of who and what we are, and a window on the world. …
We must offer Canadians something different—something they can identify with. …”

And  http://www.cbc.radio-canada.ca/docs/policies/journalistic/xml/policies.asp 
“To reflect diversity
We are committed to reflecting accurately the range of experiences and points of view of all citizens. All Canadians, of whatever origins, perspectives and beliefs, should feel that our news and current affairs coverage is relevant to them and lives up to our Values. …”

Anyway, whether left or right wing, we all view events through our own prism/world view. As I’ve said before, it would be far simpler if everyone, including the media, admitted to having one.

And now, I’m done with this topic. 

Well, I tried. We’re still talking past each other.

Finally! An admission that the conservative POV is not reflected in many
media outlets, be they public or private. That’s my and many
conservatives’ beef with CBC, isn’t it?

You and others have NEVER answered what “reflecting the conservative POV” would look like. What would make you happy??

(For myself, I only want truth and objectivity from my national broadcaster… if I wanted my own POV, I’d check a mirror)

CBC’s Power & Politics, the At Issue panel, Cross Country CheckUp…   – Hey, those aren’t anything like the talk radio example you posted.

Power & Politics, CTV’s Question Period.

.. and these too are NOTHING like the interview show you just complained about. Your argument is squirmier than a bored 3-year-old.

In the past couple of weeks I’ve listened to several respectful and extended conversations with: David Wilkinson (former US ambassador to Canada), Peter Kent, David Frum, Chuck Stroll… all on CBC Radio.  Not what I’d expect from a broadcaster with a Liberal , anti-US bias.

Nobody here or elsewhere has yet successfully demonstrated that CBC’s journalism (aka reporting and presenting the news) is anything other than professional, objective, truthful. Pointing to a few opinion pieces you disliked then claiming that “all CBC is biased” is nothing more than  parroting a demonstrably false claim.

ooo, my bad. Have your UBC friend pop by and back up your argument, because you haven’t.

First, there’s a difference between being bad and obtuse – I don’t see you as bad.  Second, he was not my “friend”, he was the Prof and while I undertstand you see him as incompetant becuase he didn’t come from the “Center of the Universe”, his experience and success is worlds above yours – so I’ll take his definition before I take the one that…Uhh…you never gave.

As for Toronto’s problems – reduce librairies by half – Leverage businesses like Calgary did to pay for a central building for the addicts, homeless etc.  If the Mega city isn’t working – vote it out – has the nanny state robbed you of free will?  As for the downloading – welcome to Paul Martin’s economics, though he wasn’t entirely wrong – if you want a service you have to pay for it.

As far as transit etc goes, welcome to reality – ever since the “Last Spike” was driven (look it up) and maps were readily available most have known we live in a country about 5000kn across – I cringe everytime I hear half-wits comparing us to coutnries you can ride across on a bike in a day.  Toronto faces the same problem in that regard that Vancouver and every other city does.  Solutions (for all cities) will not come via the Tooth Fairy (Feds) but will have to be dealt with my the municipal government hired to do so.  If you want the Feds to do it- get rid of municpal Governments.

http://www.friends.ca/news-item/8845
For years, CBC was the go-to source for TV news in Canada, and “The
National” was the uncontested ratings leader. But it has slipped
dramatically over the past 15-to-20 years as its commercial rivals carve
into its share.
This fall, CTV’s “CTV National News” at 11 p.m. had an average audience of 1.2 million, up 37% from last fall.
Even Global, a perennial also-ran in the news sweepstakes, has assumed a
much stronger position. Its “Global National” had an average aud of
979,000 this fall, up 23%, beating “The National’s” average aud of
477,000, which is down more than 20% on last fall.

Note that unlike yourself, I actually went to a source friendly to the CBC to get this – so you very clearly haven’t a clue of what you’re talking about  -  maybe you should have finished your education before you grew such a large ego. And that, my friend is “market share”

If the Mega city isn’t working – vote it out – has the nanny state robbed you of free will?

No, gerrymandering did. With the addition of the suburbs, there’s now a stalemate between the city core and the “i’m ok jack” suburbs.

That my friend is incomplete information. It’s just one time slot,  makes no mention of absolute share (which would show how everyone’s slice has been eroded by all the cable options), and focuses just on changes from 2008 to 2009.

I can’t yet link to a pie chart showing a true picture of share, averaged out, with the incursion of cable, PVRs and the internet.

And good numbers are increasingly hard to come by. But you knew all this already, o tv market guru.

« “CBC’s Power & Politics, the At Issue panel, Cross Country CheckUp… “  - Hey, those aren’t anything like the talk radio example you posted.
“Power & Politics, CTV’s Question Period.”
.. and these too are NOTHING like the interview show you just complained about. »
How do you know? Which talk radio program was it? Which interview show? You know only one side of the equation, so you can’t really say with such certainty they’re “NOTHING like” the examples I gave. 

“Your argument is squirmier than a bored 3-year-old.”
And as usual, you revert to dismissive condescension.
But on this we agree, we’re definitely done.

never mind “how I know” … was I right or not?

On Power & Politics today, one segment focused on the Conservatives’ survey in Irwin Cotler’s riding, asking constituents whom they would vote for in the event Mr. Cotler resigns. During QP, Peter Van Loan termed it a freedom of speech issue.

During the P & P show, Solomon pointed out to Bob Rae the Conservatives’ defence of such a survey: there’s often speculation about politicians’ future, usually widely covered by the media. Rae vehemently said NO, that never happens.

Well, either Mr. Rae doesn’t read many reports/columns or else he’s got some of the Pinocchio syndrome he accuses others of having.

I tried posting these reminders about some such speculation at Susan Delacourt’s blog, but was unsuccessful. 

(I provide no links to avoid funny formatting) ”Liberals want Peter MacKay to come clean on exit plansJANE TABERGlobe and Mail UpdatePosted on Friday, November 12, 2010 8:50AM ESTWill he stay or will he go? Continually cut out of the action by his own Prime Minister, the Defence Minister has been dogged by speculation this week that he is ready to jump ship for a prestigious Bay Street law firm. …”John Ibbitson and Chantal Hebert wrote similar stories around the same time.”At pivotal moment for military, MacKay is grilled about his futureJOHN IBBITSONOTTAWA— From Thursday’s Globe and MailPublished Wednesday, Nov. 10, 2010 10:18PM EST… And yet his Defence Minister, Peter MacKay, spent part of Wednesday evening fending off questions as to whether he has had talks with a Bay Street law firm to quit the government early in the new year. …””Hébert: MacKay the latest to quack in lame duck cabinetPublished On Fri Nov 12 2010Even before he had to fend off rumours of an imminent departure from federal politics on Wednesday, Peter MacKay already had some key attributes of a lame duck minister. …”Then there was this …”Fact Check: Debunking rumour Harper ineligible to runPhilip Mascoll, Special to CTV.caDate: Thursday Apr. 21, 2011 7:17 AM ETPrime Minister Stephen Harper is eligible to be a candidate in the May 2 election and to seek the country’s top political office again, despite the vote of no confidence and finding of contempt against his government by the House of Commons, despite rumours circulating to the contrary. …”And this from theobserver.ca”Judge rumours swirl, but Toews says he’ll seek re-electionPosted 3 years agoA senior federal cabinet minister says he plans to run in the next election and denies he’s being pushed off Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s team. …”So, contrary to Bob Rae’s assertions to the contrary, the gossip & rumour mill are active on all fronts.

Having said that, here’s what I posted on Dec. 2 on the Irwin Cotler riding issue.
The Conservatives have four years of governing ahead of them, so they should lay off the rumour mill and innuendo. Leave those tactics to the opposition and concentrate on governing. However, the opposition and their buddies in the press gallery often spread all sorts of rumours about the Conservatives. BUT just because THEY sink to that level it doesn’t mean the Conservatives should sink to that same scummy level.

Well, I see I wasn’t able to avoid the funny formatting …

“never mind “how I know” … was I right or not?”
No, you aren’t. 
Heh. I never figured you for someone seeking Oprah-esque validation.

You described the shows pretty clearly.  Since you haven’t now named them, I guess I’ll die … unvalidated.  Or not.

“I guess I’ll die …”
Melodramatic, no?

It’s called “push-polling”, where the survey isn’t intended to measure opinion, it’s intended to create opinion – in this case creating the impression that Cotler intends to resign.

Yes it’s considered a dirty trick.

In case you didn’t know, the average car price is damn near cost, anyway.

Yuppers – that’s why they manage to sell them for 20-30% less just 100 miles south of you – and pay the Government back 7 Billion (that’s with a B) within 20 months of being “bankrupt”.     Razor thin margins those.

In case you didn’t know, the average car price is damn near cost, anyway.

Yuppers – that’s why they manage to sell them for 20-30% less just 100 miles south of you – and pay the Government back 7 Billion (that’s with a B) within 20 months of being “bankrupt”.     Razor thin margins those.

But you knew all this already, o tv market guru

YOu won’t find numbers – pie chart, gant chart or any other to prove something which only exists in your mind.   And Market share is a commonly used and understood term, frequently utilized in the press – one hardly has to be a “Guru” to understand it – so its not that I’m that brilliant – its that you’re that dense.

But you knew all this already, o tv market guru

YOu won’t find numbers – pie chart, gant chart or any other to prove something which only exists in your mind.   And Market share is a commonly used and understood term, frequently utilized in the press – one hardly has to be a “Guru” to understand it – so its not that I’m that brilliant – its that you’re that dense.

We’re splitting hairs on terminology.

If your point is that considering just over-the-air TV broadcasters, the CBC has lost share of that viewership over the last 20 years, well, sure. OK. Global grew alot during that period and CTV brought their ‘A’ game finally, stealing Lloyd Robertson along the way.

My point is that over the same 20 years, the viewers’ options exploded – cable, Internet, PVRs – and the audience for over-the-air TV has gone down, so you’re crowing about increased ‘share’ of a shrinking market. The private broadcasters still lost viewers over that 20 year period.

And anyway – so what? Pop-tarts outsell broccoli. Should broccoli leave the market?

The campaign to kill the CBC is a small-minded, ideological jihad, and all this after-the-fact flailing around for justification cannot hide that fact.

So you contend that the overall market is imploding, the CBC share is decreasing and yet you still want to spend 1.16 billion on it?  And you think the reasonable ones are “Jihadists?  And they say dinosuars died becuase they coulldn’t adapt.

/So you contend that the overall market is imploding, the CBC share is decreasing and yet you still want to spend 1.16 billion on it? And you think the reasonable ones are “Jihadists? And they say dinosuars died becuase they coulldn’t adapt. /

I initially took you for a thinking person, but your responses in this thread have me wondering.

Do you genuinely think that by showing that for ONE time slot, CBC TV lost some share in 2009, you have provided a water-tight case for the dissolution of the entire CBC?

Fuck the forum, this is between us. You are putting your honourable service to Canada, and the supposed integrity behind that, to support an utterly partisan, mean-spirited and commercially-fomented jihad against an organization that has served Canada well.

Even now, with CTV and Global providing a high standard of news reporting, the CBC still kicks their ass for original research and for pursuing difficult stories.Remove the CBC, and the Canadian commercial networks would drop back to 10 minutes of nightly news mostly ripped from CNN.

And nowhere do you acknowledge that the CBC is alot more than the TV
news you may disagree with. Assuming you’ve done anything more than just
go along with the mob.

Dr Suzuki’s “Nature of Things” tonight just spotlighted some new
research showing how autism may have a relationship to bacteria in the
gut, and the research following this lead. You won’t get that story from
CTV or Global, til it shows up as a story from Reuters or AP or another
foreign source. And the SUN News outfit are monkeys playing with their
own feces.

Criticize – yes. Destroy – no. What exactly DO you like about Canada?
Right now, we’re becoming Nebraska, with better health care.

Is there more evidence needed to prove that a threaded format, with an ever-smaller space for replies, is cumbersome & at times even useless? Just scroll down to see a discussion between DougM & Kenn2 disappear, ending up in a column of single letters!

Stephen, when I first discovered your blog, sometime in 2005 (?), comments were listed chronologically and all anyone responding to a commenter had to do was cite the commenter’s name & time of comment. That format worked very well. I’m afraid the current one does not.

Yeah, I know, everyone’s a critic …

Yeah, I find this to be a zany format and totally irksome to try to follow comments.

When the bandwidth has gone to a thread of single letters it’s time to forget about those comments. Guess it’s one way of getting rid of trolls who keep on trying to get the last word though.

Yeah, I find this to be a zany format and totally irksome to try to follow comments.

When the bandwidth has gone to a thread of single letters it’s time to forget about those comments. Guess it’s one way of getting rid of trolls who keep on trying to get the last word though.

Oh, the hypocrisy….

For the record, my ‘single-letter’ response to Doug shouldn’t have published, because I’d deliberately put a moderation f-bomb in it so it shouldn’t have appeared… but it did.

There is a way for someone to easily read a comment that’s gone skinny… but since most don’t like my posts, I won’t waste your time with it.

Oh, the hypocrisy….

For the record, my ‘single-letter’ response to Doug shouldn’t have published, because I’d deliberately put a moderation f-bomb in it so it shouldn’t have appeared… but it did.

There is a way for someone to easily read a comment that’s gone skinny… but since most don’t like my posts, I won’t waste your time with it.

An addendum to the comment I left here a week ago about the controversy involving Irwin Cotler’s riding. Some of his constituents reportedly received calls from a firm called Campaign Research. During those calls, when asked why they were calling, the callers apparently suggested Mr. Cotler might be resigning. Mr. Cotler raised this as a point of privilege, saying that rumour impeded his work as an MP.

In his ruling, the House Speaker termed that kind of tactic “reprehensible” — a word that Evan Solomon savoured so much that he repeated it during today’s Power & Politics at least 6 times. Having wagged their fingers and shown their stern disapproval of such “reprehensible” tactics, the “power panel” went on to discuss former PM Jean Chretien’s latest sortie, a fund-raising letter for the Liberal party. In it, Mr. Chretien once again raises the spectre of all the bogeymen against Stephen Harper: he’s going remove a woman’s right to choose, rescind gay marriage, and even reinstal capital punishment.

During the “power panel” free-for-all, when the panelists drown out the sole conservative, Joan Crockatt quite rightly pointed out the double standard applied to the Liberals and the Conservatives. The rumours about Mr. Cotler? “reprehensible”. The rumours about PM Harper? Merely Chretien being Chretien.

As I pointed out in my previous comment, I wish such tactics were not used. When the Conservative party uses such tactics, I cringe, because I think my party is lowering itself to the opposition’s level. But the sad reality is that rumours are often used to undermine the reputation of politicians, parties, and governments. Defence Minister Mackay was rumoured to be headed to a Bay St. law firm, Public Security Minister Toews was rumoured to be headed to a judgeship. Those rumours were aired by reputable journalists, citing anonymous sources. Neither Minister whined that he could not perform his work because of those rumours. Now Jean Chretien is once again reviving the “secret agenda” mantra — but that was excused as merely firing up the base by the other panelists.

Joan Crockatt has it right: there is definitely a double standard at work, which is why I believe the Conservatives must always cling to the straight and narrow. To quote a favourite Chretien-ism: “When you throw mud, you lose ground.”

Who cares about that quibble when the real problem is what’s behind ridding us of the registry?  Which would mean easier access and normalization of a horridly toxic tool for crime and evil.  I also put out there that by allowing access to guns, open borders, we shall soon see higher crime rates in poorer areas of Toronto where gun crime is already endemic.  All the more reason for Harper’s jails, right?  So far two major crimes have been committed, resulting in death of young people.  Take the guns off the streets.  No one needs to be hunting as a sport.