kimmy

uh huh, If you haven't got a bun in the oven, you're just taking oxygen that better people could be using. -k

What about Michael Moore movies? Are those non-partisan too? What about giving Avi Lewis a show? Is Avi Lewis non-partisan? -k

Where in any of that does it say he can't work for a company that's applying for a broadcasting license, Matlock? Hey, call the RCMP if you think you've found something. -k

CBC NW has aired both Bowling for Columbine and Fahrenheit 9/11. There's plenty of threads on global warming already; I won't bother. However, the use of emotionally charged imagery (such as footage from Hurricane Katrina) is an example of the kind of slant I'm referring to. Are you saying that "Undercover Mosque" does not deserve to be seen? Why? The accuracy and balance of some of these films is highly debatable, and the range of topics presented seems rather selective as well. If some channel showed an entirely accurate documentary every week, but the subject of each and every one of them was police brutality, would you say that this network was providing a balanced perspective? So why doesn't CBC NW show a wider range of opinion, then? -k

He has never had a tv show. His editorial comments might seem like a TV show, because time passes slowly when you're listening to some withered old fruit reminisce about the time his Studebaker broke down on the way to the Stanfield rally in Kenora. I'm hardly an authority on documentaries, but in the other thread I've been mentioning "Undercover Mosque" and "The Great Global Warming Swindle" as examples of documentaries I highly doubt I'll ever see on CBC Newsworld. We've been discussing documentaries from Moore and Gore, which present information in such a way as to persuade the viewer of the author's own biases. As we're talking about biases which for the most part correspond with "left wing" causes (corporations bad, guns bad, socialized healthcare good, oil bad, cars bad, industrial growth bad, labor solidarity good, Dubya bad, Muslims friendly, etc) I think the phrase "left wing documentary" is close enough that everybody knows what I'm talking about. -k

Satellite package? The claim that it's "based on Fox news" is a presumption of critics with their own axes to grind. -k

So a network that airs slanted documentaries and gives biased journalists their own shows to advocate for their particular causes would be bad? -k

Ok, so I said that none of Canada's "conservative voices" can broadcast, and you say "oh yes they can!" and it's Toronto Sun TV, which is only available in Toronto, and owned by the group that you don't want to be given a broadcast license anyway. So ... uh, what point were you trying to make, anyway? -k

haha, sure. "That Kory guy was on the panel show last year! Andrew Coyne is on the panel show! See?" Hey, so some panel show tried to have both left and right wing talking heads. Good for that show. But the network as a whole? Can you think of a time when the CBC gave some right-wing journalist a half-hour each day to fool around with, as they did for Avi Lewis a few years ago? They've heavily promoted and broadcast a number of left-wing documentaries over the years... can you name some "right-wing causes" that they've given similar treatment to? -k

So you're in favor of Quebecor being allowed to broadcast... ...but only in Toronto? -k

The Toronto Sun can't broadcast a documentary. Nor can SmallDeadAnimals, or the National Post, or the rest of the "convservative voices". I asked before if there was somebody in Canada who'd show a documentary like Undercover Mosque and you said, "well, CTV did a segment like that on W5 during the Toronto 18 case." I said I'd like to know there is a broadcaster that would show The Global Warming Swindle, and you said "well, CTV talked about climate change skepticism during their panel discussion show." You can see why I'm skeptical of the balance of the balance, right? On the one hand you've got a network that will obtain these left-wing documentaries, promote them heavily on their full network, and broadcast them in their entirety. The balance is, well, a segment on the weekly news show or a mention on their panel discussion. -k

I know there's a broadcaster I can count on to show me a documentary about how tarsands development is encroaching on the territory of the endangered Northern Reticulated Muskeg Toad, or to do an investigative expose on whether the homeless of Vancouver's downtown east side have fulfilling sex lives. I would like to know there's a broadcast I could look to to show me something like Undercover Mosque or The Great Global Warming Swindle. -k

Allowing a CBC Newsworld to broadcast but denying a conservative-leaning broadcaster isn't helpful either. It gives people the impression that the playing field is tilted, builds resentment, and fuels animosity. It already exists. Keeping a right-of-center broadcaster from starting up isn't going to fight the polarization you're worried about, it fuels it. Instead of the airwaves it ends up on blogs and forums and talk radio and the comments section of newspapers. -k

I personally don't. But what's that got to do with anything? If someone wished to watch such a network, why shouldn't they be allowed to? If someone wished to watch CBC Newsworld all day, why shouldn't they be allowed to? -k

So if there were a network that promoted programming from people like Avi Lewis and Naomi Klein and Roger Moore and Al Gore and so on with no apparent counterbalancing viewpoints, would you say that was shameful, or would your suspicion be that their programming was done by accident? -k

What about those whose "information boats" are not floated by either CBC or CTV? You say you don't object to it, you just don't see a need for it. How are you measuring "need"? Is there a need for a Space channel in Canada, when other networks also sometimes show science-fiction themed programming? Is there a need for a W channel in Canada, when other networks also sometimes show chick-themed programming? Is there a need for the Spike network in Canada, when other networks also sometimes show moron-themed programming? I think that the "need" for a channel could probably be measured by its viewership. If people are tuning in, then it must be filling a need, right? They must be watching for some reason, yes? If it tanks, then you can certainly come back to me and say "see, kimmy? It really wasn't needed after all." I remain puzzled by the criticism of those who'd welcome such a channel as being afraid of contrary information, when clearly it is the opponents of this proposal-- both in this thread, and the other thread, and as quoted in the article in the original post-- who are the ones afraid of contrary information. -k

Well, it's good that somebody did an investigative report on the Toronto 18 plot, since that was, kinda, like, a major news story. So, if CTV has all our needs looked after, then it sounds like we need neither Fox North nor CBC Newsnet? -k

That's super, Jack, but I'm asking for some of the folks claiming that this is a breech of lobbying rules to defend that claim. -k

Is there a news station in Canada that would show, say ... Undercover Mosque? -k

Wait, leftwingers are campaigning to disallow an application for a station... and it's "conservative types" who don't want to have to listen to anyone they don't agree with?? -k

Still waiting for someone on the crybaby side of this to explain how applying for a broadcasting license qualifies as "lobbying" in the legal sense. -k

Again, it seems to me that the bleating here comes from the left: those who believe this station should not be granted a license. It seems to me that those who are happy within the confines of their own echo chamber seek to deny others the same option. If we have a CBC Newsworld that's willing to give airtime to folks like Avi Lewis and Naomi Klein and Al Gore and Roger Moore, why shouldn't there be a station that's willing to give airtime to topics that are less pleasing to the fuzzy-wuzzy sensibilities of the CBC Newsworld target audience? -k

I know exactly what he was getting at, and I don't actually disagree. But when I heard this talk about homophobic black people, the first thing I thought of was the controversy around "kill-fags"-themed reggae music, and the fact is: at least some Canadians were willing to stand up against that bigotry regardless of it coming from brown-people. My personal suspicion is that the phenomenon you're referring to is not acceptance of hateful views, but rather the disbelief that it actually exists. Many on "the left" are either unaware that such views actually exist, unwilling to believe that they are widely held, or of the belief that once these brown bigots are transplanted to Canada their hearts will open like the flowers of the Jojopo tree to the warm sunny rays of liberal thought and that their intolerance will be purged from them, and that these former brown bigots will become their natural allies, united with the gays and the poor and the rest of the downtrodden by the the shared experience of persecution at the hands of RichStraightWhiteMen. -k

I was speaking of trends, Dick. I think that many fashion trends emerge here because many Canadians emulate what they see on (American) TV. I don't follow Tweets from either Snooki or McCain, but I caught this one somehow, and it struck my sense of whimsy. Perhaps you'll soon be changing your handle to mccain_snooki_2012. -k

My news feeder alerted me to a Twitter exchange between John McCain and Snooki Palozzi. Snooki is a young woman from a "reality show" that I don't watch. It chronicles the adventures of a group of young Italian-Americans in the Jersey Shore area. Snooki is famous for being punched out on TV, and for being a white-person who is tanned to a darker color than most Africans. Or at least, she used to be. Sadly, hard times have hit Snooki's tanning regimen: Her plight has found a sympathetic ear... none less than John McCain! (I think it's too late for sunscreen to help Snooki, John.) Apparently, this is for real! As part of the Obama health care bill, there is now a 10% tax on tanning beds, which will come into effect in July. The theory is apparently that indoor tanning can cause skin cancer, so people who do so should contribute to the healthcare system to offset the costs their habit will likely cause the system. Personally, I don't tan. I can't. I get red just walking past a window. That picture in my profile isn't over-exposed... I'm just that color. So on the one hand I wouldn't mind a bit if tanning stopped being "cool". I'd love to see the idea that a tan is an indicator of a healthy active lifestyle just vanish. I personally think it's quite ridiculous. And, lighter skin is cool again, thanks to people like Scarlett Johansson. Perhaps a tanning tax will help that along... perhaps I should actually be glad to see Barack beat down fake tans. After all, what happens on mainstreet America one day shows up in Hollywood the next, and arrives in Canada the day after. However, this sounds slap-dash and arbitrary. As this article explains, the tanning tax was rushed into the legislation as a last-minute replacement for a 5% tax on cosmetic surgery (which is probably as much a potential health risk as tanning, one might expect). Why was the 5% tax on cosmetic surgery dropped? Because it was unfair to women, allegedly, or more to the point because cosmetic surgery is a huge economic industry. And, I'd suggest, because medical groups have a way better lobby than the Indoor Tanning Association. -k