CBC Ombudsman to do Internal Investigation

jdobbin · December 19, 2007

I had one of those DirecTV dishes for a little bit and loved it. I got my hockey games (which is all i watch canadian tv for anyway) CBC newsworld if I wanted Can. news. And all the specialty American channels.
Blasted reality tv is ticking me off, that's what's all on the major networks now and turns me off of them.

But since I've gotten star choice I've been very disappointed, I've seen Bell but it's no better. Comparing Movie Central to Starz is like comparing a greasy hamburger to a steak at the keg.

You are one of many Canadians who opted out of the paying system for TV, it seems.

jdobbin · December 19, 2007

US network programming , as in NBC, CBS ABC, I watch very little off, more like none.
American shows yes, like HBO's Weed (funny as hell but might have jumped the shark), Rescue Me , The L Word (for the visuals ya know)

But I love Natl Geographic channel and the like.

HBO is an incredible network when it comes to original series.

blueblood · December 19, 2007

You are one of many Canadians who opted out of the paying system for TV, it seems.

Well I did have rabbit ears before... And I am paying for mediocrity now.

If they sold DirecTV up here and didn't cut any of the channels, I'd buy it in a second. Star choice and Bell are horrible. This is an example of where a monopoly is a folly (Star choice and Bell offer identical programing). If there was competition there wouldn't be crap.

Canadian made stuff needs to be better, it has potential to be better, just because it is protected doesn't mean it has to be crap. A defence for Can. TV and that it's shows can be good enough is that the new fangled Degrassi show is syndicated on the CW in the US and comes on some FOX channels.

M.Dancer · December 19, 2007

I'm watching right now Kenny vs Spenny.

They are doing a sodomy torture competition...who can take more of a hotdog up their bum...now that's quality Canadian TV!!

jdobbin · December 19, 2007

Well I did have rabbit ears before... And I am paying for mediocrity now.
If they sold DirecTV up here and didn't cut any of the channels, I'd buy it in a second. Star choice and Bell are horrible. This is an example of where a monopoly is a folly (Star choice and Bell offer identical programing). If there was competition there wouldn't be crap.

Canadian made stuff needs to be better, it has potential to be better, just because it is protected doesn't mean it has to be crap. A defence for Can. TV and that it's shows can be good enough is that the new fangled Degrassi show is syndicated on the CW in the US and comes on some FOX channels.

Degrassi can't be produced in Canada without supports. No series in Canada can do that. Even when it is sold in the U.S., doesn't make back its production costs except over many, many years. A U.S. show makes up its production costs on first airing.

I agree that DirecTv and Dish Network should be allowed to be sold in Canada.

It is part of the reforms I believe Canada needs. We need to get people to stop stealing signals and many would if they could buy the signal legally.

There is a lot of other things that need to be done. Some of the these things done by themselves would simple end Canadian TV. Period. We need to determine how to best serve all of the Canadian public. I think that means opening up the market completely and supporting Canadian original programming at the same time.

jdobbin · December 22, 2007

The internal investigation according to the Tory blogosphere is now focusing on Krista Erickson.

There are still stories circulating that it is Radio Canada reporters from the French service that are a focus because the question asked seems to be in regards to a Quebec issue.

We may never know.

In any event, the name of the reporter will not be published one way or the other. If there is discipline meted out, it probably won't be visible to the public.

Edited December 22, 2007 by jdobbin

Keepitsimple · December 23, 2007

I did a search to find the original article as reported by CBC - to see how "front and center" it was. I chuckled when I found it under "Arts and Entertainment" as opposed to "News". Now they can't be accused of not reporting the story - can they? Our tax dollars at work. Here's the link:

CBC A & E Link: http://www.cbc.ca/cp/media/071214/X121411AU.html

Edited December 23, 2007 by Keepitsimple

BubberMiley · December 23, 2007

A&E. That's hilarious.

Michael Bluth · December 23, 2007

The CBC Website is a muddle anyways. It's pretty tough to find anything.

BubberMiley · December 23, 2007

Thinking about it further though, they might have felt there was a conflict of interest in the news department reporting on it, but didn't want to completely ignore the story either. If their intention was to bury it, they could have easily done so while still keeping it in the news department.

jdobbin · December 24, 2007

Tories use CBC investigation to raise money.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/071224/...raft_tories_cbc

he Conservative Party of Canada has slammed the country's public broadcaster in a fundraising letter to party members.
Top party official Doug Finley has sent Conservative grassroots supporters a letter in which he lambastes the CBC and asks people for money to help fight an election.

Finley, the party's campaign director, says he was shocked by allegations that a CBC reporter helped produce questions for a Liberal MP to ask Brian Mulroney at a recent parliamentary hearing.

Now he's using the incident as a fundraising message to the party faithful: Tories face a chronic disadvantage because of their powerful enemies, and need your cash to overcome it.

But while casting the governing party as a perennial underdog, Finley glosses over the fact that the Tories are - by far - the top dog in the money department.

The Tories are loaded with cash after out-fundraising the Liberals by millions of dollars at a four-to-one ratio, and that money has allowed them to staff campaign headquarters and run multiple TV ads.

Word is now coming out that Tories received questions from CBC to ask the Liberals during the Gomery inquiry. It is over the blogosphere now and it is mentioned in the CP report.

Other reporters say they've suggested questions for politicians in the past - for instance, when Conservatives were in opposition and grilling the Liberals during the sponsorship scandal.

Michael Bluth · December 24, 2007

Tories use CBC investigation to raise money.

Big surprise.

Yet another flaccid and impotent attack from the Liberals leading cheerleader on this site.

Devoid of decency, intellectual rigor or proper support. Ahhh, imagine the rage of impotence when the Conservatives win a majority in the next election.

jdobbin · December 24, 2007

Thinking about it further though, they might have felt there was a conflict of interest in the news department reporting on it, but didn't want to completely ignore the story either. If their intention was to bury it, they could have easily done so while still keeping it in the news department.

It seems now that if the Tories pursue this, they will name the Conservative MPs who received questions to ask in terms of Gomery.

Kitchener · December 26, 2007

This is just a manufactured story for the consumption of neo-con outrage-o-philes. This thread shows that it's fallen on fertile ground.

The fact is that political reporters work in close contact with politicians from all parties. This means, among other things, that they sometimes compare notes and posit questions -- again, with members of all parties. This story is designed to take the heat off the Conservatives, by pitching one instance of this completely unremarkable fact as if it were a grave sin. Fortunately for them, they can count on their staunchest supporters to (i) know nothing of these facts and (ii) be on a hair trigger for unreasoned outrage when the words "CBC" and "bias" are thrown to them.

Of course, the belief that sauce for the goose is a criminal prejudice against the gander is long established in the Conservative mindset. Mulroney's former press secretary, Michel Gratton, writes about the journalists joining The Chin's campaign bus after having just toured with John Turner. The pundits...

...brought along their satirical songs and horror stories about the man they called "Chick" -- Turner's nickname from college days at the University of British Columbia. The song they sang on the Turner plane, while the leader cringed in his seat at the front, was to the tune of John Lennon's "Give Peace a Chance"...
"All we are saying,

Is give Chick a chance,

All we are saying,

Is give Chick his pants."

-- So What Are The Boys Saying? , p.49

This was considered "refreshing" on the Mulroney buses. Yet, as we all know, when the pundits subsequently sank their teeth into Mulroney as he become the front-runner and later PM, this was depicted as an awful media bias against Conservatives. And his followers sucked it up, have never forgotten it, have filed it away in their Big Fuzzy Mental File of Media Unfairness to Conservatives. They should be embarrased by the fact that they are utterly unwilling to grasp, unable to fathom, or purely gobshite ignorant of the myriad respects in which exactly the same phenomena are experienced by every party in Canada.

Michael Bluth · December 27, 2007

joining The Chin's campaign bus

The Chin? tsk tsk tsk. Along with such phrases as Mr. Dithers and Liebranos it is not allowed.

this was depicted as an awful media bias against Conservatives. And his followers sucked it up, have never forgotten it, have filed it away in their Big Fuzzy Mental File of Media Unfairness to Conservatives.

Clearly an attack on the Conservative Party of Canada and its predecessor the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada.

No pedantic games. Again reported.

Kitchener · December 27, 2007

The Chin? tsk tsk tsk. Along with such phrases as Mr. Dithers and Liebranos it is not allowed.
Clearly an attack on the Conservative Party of Canada and its predecessor the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada.

No pedantic games. Again reported.

My post was thoroughly substantive, and quoted a Conservative press secretary. Are you now contending that Mulroney's press secretary was attacking the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada? Or was the insult my claim that Mulroney's followers believe him?

Here's more from Gratton on Mulroney's irrational attitude towards the media:

It was during this period in mid-August [1984] that The Boss was starting to believe his own myth... I tried to impress on The Boss that times had changed since Trudeaumania sixteen years before, that the media hadn't been the same since TV took control of the reporting process, and since Watergate heightened everyone's suspicions. I could sympathize with him, but I found it unsettling that in the midst of a staggering electoral victory he was fretting because the papers weren't talking about "Mulromania." I was later told that part of the reason for his pique was the "Milamania" some papers had discovered, but I never believed that. It was simply an extension of his media complex; he thought they had been out to get him from the beginning, and even in his hour of glory the old insecurity was coming to the surface. The future was going to give his paranoia something to work on. -- p. 54

Notice that this would be actual independent evidence of an obsession with bias at the top of the Conservative leadership going back over 20 years, provided by a disinterested and almost uniquely authoritative source. It might also be worth your reflecting on who cut back the CBC more: Brian Mulroney, or Jean Chretien. If the CBC is this reliably pro-Liberal force, what would you expect to see from the Liberals in their treatment of the CBC over the long years of the Chretien government?

I'm sorry if you find substantive claims and salient points to be insulting. But your virtually unintelligible claims of insult become stranger still, when juxtaposed with your own description, on the very same page, of a "flaccid and impotent attack from the Liberals leading cheerleader on this site. Devoid of decency, intellectual rigor or proper support." Why not attempt to produce some contentful posting yourself, or at least intellectually engage the ones that have been posted?

Michael Bluth · December 27, 2007

My post was thoroughly substantive, and quoted a Conservative press secretary. Are you now contending that Mulroney's press secretary was attacking the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada? Or was the insult my claim that Mulroney's followers believe him?

The Chin is an insult. Just as Liebranos and Mr. Dithers is.

Here's more from Gratton on Mulroney's irrational attitude towards the media:

I've read the Gratton book and have it on my book shelf.

I'm sorry if you find substantive claims and salient points to be insulting. But your virtually unintelligible claims of insult become stranger still, when juxtaposed with your own description, on the very same page, of a "flaccid and impotent attack from the Liberals leading cheerleader on this site. Devoid of decency, intellectual rigor or proper support." Why not attempt to produce some contentful posting yourself, or at least intellectually engage the ones that have been posted?

The chin is a substantive claim? A salient point?

What do you mean by contentful?

I have posted many relevant comments and work on a number of occasions to foster debate.

Take a look at the post I was replying to. The statement you quoted was an accurate description of the history of the posts.

Kitchener · December 27, 2007

The Chin is an insult.

To Mulroney, perhaps -- though it's a widely used term, I'm perfectly happy not to use it, if it's inconsistent with forum rules. But an insult to "the Conservative Party of Canada and its predecessor, the Progressive Conservative Party Canada"? That, recall, was your claim. I'm trying to understand how that could make any sense.

I'm glad you have the book, though that's irrelevant. The points, yet again, would be these: reading media bias into at least some perfectly even-handed media behavior goes back a long way in Canadian conservative circles; and the Liberals under Chretien were a strongly anti-CBC government, cutting nearly twice as much funding from the network as Preston Manning had threatened. Anyone who wants to claim that the Canadian media, and especially the CBC, are a pro-Liberal, anti-conservative force has to take such actual data seriously. Facts trump the recitation of boilerplate mythology.

Michael Bluth · December 27, 2007

To Mulroney, perhaps -- though it's a widely used term, I'm perfectly happy not to use it, if it's inconsistent with forum rules.

Thank you.

Mr. Dithers was a widely used term to refer to Paul Martin and has been ruled inconsistent with the forum rules.

capricorn · December 27, 2007

Mr. Dithers was a widely used term to refer to Paul Martin and has been ruled inconsistent with the forum rules.

And we are not to use the "T" word in reference to Jack Layton.

JerrySeinfeld · January 11, 2008

I watch the National (CBC) - maybe this is why I haven't heard more about the CBC reporter who colluded with the Liberals in an attempt to tie the Mulroney-Schreiber scandal to the Harper Conservatives.

an excerpt from a NP column:

It is not the CBC's business to manufacture news with the cooperation of one political party in an attempt to discredit another. But the behaviour of the reporter in question certainly leaves Canadians with the impression that the CBC and Liberals are working together to embarrass -- or even bring down -- the Harper government.
In late December, Mr. Cruikshank (CBC Big WIg) wrote to Doug Finley, the head of the Conservatives' campaign team, to counter-complain. Mr. Cruickshank insisted that the Conservatives' use of the Rodriguez incident in a fundraising letter was threatening "public faith in our political process."

Really, Mr. Cruikshank? Even more threatening than finding out our public broadcaster -- which already has a reputation for anti-conservative, pro-liberal bias -- and the main opposition party are in cahoots against the government?

Such sanctimony is what sets so many Canadians against the CBC in the first place. They object to having their tax dollars going to a broadcaster that uses the money to disparage their points of view and beliefs. Then they are doubly offended by the CBC's pious insistences that its coverage is balanced and that all complaints to the contrary are attacks on Canada's democracy.

Link

Kitchener · January 11, 2008

I watch the National (CBC) - maybe this is why I haven't heard more about the CBC reporter who colluded with the Liberals in an attempt to tie the Mulroney-Schreiber scandal to the Harper Conservatives.
an excerpt from a NP column:

Link

Old news, and confused besides.

Topaz · January 13, 2008

What are the Cons mad about, the fact a journalist asked/wrote the questions or the questions? The answer Mulroney gave was what I think Canadians wanted to hear. Mulroney said he had talked to Bernier but not when he was Industry Minister but when he was Foreign Affairs Minister. He said he is good friends with Bernier's father. What i would like to know is the question that Hebiert asked of Schreider about talks between Schreiber, his lawyer and I think the RCMP and Martin had asked Schreiber about that and Schreiber said that's a good question, how did he know?? Sorry, no link doing it from memory watching TV.

Michael Bluth · January 13, 2008

What are the Cons mad about

I think the last paragraph of the NP excerpt JerrySeinfeld posted just about sums it up.

The CBC does not have a God-given right to do whatever they want with taxpayer money.

They should take that into account and keep the sanctimony to themselves.

Oleg Bach · January 13, 2008

I think the last paragraph of the NP excerpt JerrySeinfeld posted just about sums it up.
The CBC does not have a God-given right to do whatever they want with taxpayer money.

They should take that into account and keep the sanctimony to themselves.

If you remember the great jounalist at CBC - Barbara Frum..yes she was fine and generated a living out of CBC - with that money she raised a son who became one of AMERICAS best propogandist and spin doctor. CBC - is a corporation filled with hedonistic aging homosexuals, and over load of affirmtive action females and self serving journalist that all hope to be what their American counter parts are. CBC is also cheap - they paid below regular ACTRA rates and by doing so maintain a no-star policy as far as thwarting artists from having money and fame and influence. BUT - the journalist are all aspiring stars. They are much like a communist nation where an elite form and live high on the hog. I am sure that the brighest of the journalist conspire to maintain a status quo that does not serve the nation as intended and now answers to no one - and should not warrant continued public funding...like the city of Toronto that has become a liberal city state that spits on the rest of Canada.