CBC Ombudsman to do Internal Investigation

[August1991]

I know the right wing despises public broadcasting for idealogical reasons. I just wish they would be upfront about their intentions if they get a majority.

I don't object to State-financing of broadcasting and I think that I could even make a good case to justify it.

As Argus noted above, I object to the fact that the CBC is so one-sided. I never hear an opposing viewpoint. (And please don't tell me that Rex Murphy is right wing or having Preston Manning doing five minute spots about belief somehow makes things OK). Even Radio-Canada is not a one trick pony.

So, with that said, I'm doubtful that the CBC is a viable entity in the long run. When CBC workers went on strike awhile ago, nobody noticed except for hockey fans and a few NDP voters.

It is called incremental Conservativism. It means you never say what you really want and nibble away at the edges on issues such as the CBC.

You mean "incremental conservatism" is the new buzz word for *scary, scary*. Edited December 16, 2007 by August1991

[jdobbin]

I don't object to State-financing of broadcasting and I think that I could even make a good case to justify it.

Propose changes then. The Tories were in opposition to determining a mandate for the CBC this past year. Not very productive of them, don't you think?

The term incremental conservativism is the word the Tories are using themselves. Now you think it is a dirty word?

Edited December 16, 2007 by jdobbin

[capricorn]

The CBC lost TV rights for the CFL. I wonder if this will be blamed on incremental conservatism.

Under the agreement, TSN and RDS acquire:

* Broadcast rights for the CFL's entire 77-game package annually, comprised of 72 regular-season games, 4 divisional playoff matches and the Grey Cup

* Digital rights for these games, including broadband, mobile, video-on-demand and interactive TV

* Exclusive rights to host content and sell advertising on the CFL's websites www.CFL.ca and www.LCF.ca

http://www.tsn.ca/cfl/news_story/?ID=189132&hubname=

How will this affect CBC viewership during the CFL season in 2008?

On the upside, the CBC will probably televise more NHL games. Whether this will make up for lost CFL viewership has yet to be seen.

[jdobbin]

The CBC lost TV rights for the CFL. I wonder if this will be blamed on incremental conservatism.

How will this affect CBC viewership during the CFL season in 2008?

On the upside, the CBC will probably televise more NHL games. Whether this will make up for lost CFL viewership has yet to be seen.

The CBC lost the games fair and square in bidding. 2008 is likely going to be a good year for their sports department because of the Olympics, basketball and continued hockey games on Saturday.

Raptor game schedule.

http://www.cbc.ca/sports/nba/tvschedule.html

Edited December 16, 2007 by jdobbin

[Michael Bluth]

The CBC lost TV rights for the CFL. I wonder if this will be blamed on incremental conservatism.

How will this affect CBC viewership during the CFL season in 2008?

On the upside, the CBC will probably televise more NHL games. Whether this will make up for lost CFL viewership has yet to be seen.

I don't think it will effect the CBC's viewership numbers in 2008.

Not sure if the CBC can change the number of NHL games it carries. Double header on Saturdays is pretty standard.

If the CBC gets out of sports that is another positive incremental move by the Conservatives.

[August1991]

Propose changes then. The Tories were in opposition to determining a mandate for the CBC this past year. Not very productive of them, don't you think?

You pick and choose your fights. I'd hate to be the one to reform the CBC. God knows where you start.

The term incremental conservativism is the word the Tories are using themselves. Now you think it is a dirty word?

You got me there, Dobbin! I may even have started a thread on it. (I did.)

Frankly, I didn't like Flanagan's idea and it just opens the Conservatives up to the Liberal/NDP criticsm of *scary, scary*.

[Michael Bluth]

Frankly, I didn't like Flanagan's idea and it just opens the Conservatives up to the Liberal/NDP criticsm of *scary, scary*.

The Liberals are going to continue using *scary* *scary* *scary* for a long time.

Incrementalism is yet another significant strategy of the Liberals, why not adopt them.

Do you think a federal party could have been elected 30 years ago on a platform of making references to Christmas by government officials taboo, the CBC being openly biased against the government of the day, advocating same sex marriage, gender neutralizing such terms as chairman or alderman, advocating same sex marriage, or advocating for special status for the GLBT community?

Not a chance.

Now all of those are sacred cows that lead to screams of redneck, fascist and racist if they are ever questioned.

The Conservatives have focused for far too long on trying to make the big huge change. Little by little. Steady wins the race.

Edited December 16, 2007 by Michael Bluth

[capricorn]

The CBC lost the games fair and square in bidding.

No one said any differently. I'd hate to think the CBC lost the bid on purpose.

[Michael Bluth]

I'd hate to think the CBC lost the bid on purpose.

It's interesting the power that CBC Sports has lost.

They have lost the Olympics after Beijing, curling and now the CFL.

Maybe the suggestion to get out of sports altogether is a good one.

[jdobbin]

You pick and choose your fights. I'd hate to be the one to reform the CBC. God knows where you start.

You got me there, Dobbin! I may even have started a thread on it. (I did.)

Frankly, I didn't like Flanagan's idea and it just opens the Conservatives up to the Liberal/NDP criticsm of *scary, scary*.

I think the Commission from September 11 had an interesting phrase: "A failure of the imagination." I see no evidence that the Tories have picked a fight with the CBC in regards to its future. They had an opportunity last year to assert a mandate on the public broadcaster but denied the CBC and themselves permission to go ahead. It looks that the Tories had a failure of the imagination in regards to what they could have done.

CBC was begging for a direction from the government.

It seems unseemly all the complaining we see here on the boards about CBC when the government is unwilling to do anything.

As I said, I didn't make up the phrase "incremental conservatism." The criticism it may or may not open the government to is not fear but of frankness about what they will actually do given a majority.

[jdobbin]

No one said any differently. I'd hate to think the CBC lost the bid on purpose.

I suspect that the sports networks will eventually outbid the CBC on most team sporting events. I don't see this as a problem. CBC radio eventually got out of all sports and now it is going concern in most major radio markets.

[BubberMiley]

The Conservatives have focused for far too long on trying to make the big huge change. Little by little. Steady wins the race.

I agree that what the CPC would really like is far too extreme for mainstream electability, and that incrementally displaying their true colours is the only way to maintain power and win a majority. But that seems to go against your mocking assertion that they wouldn't be *scary* to the voting public. You contradicted yourself before your post was done.

[capricorn]

Incremental conservatism is what the majority of Conservative voters want. Some want it sooner than later but Harper knows better than to jump in with two feet. Canadians who voted for other parties may very well like what they have seen, especially in their wallets, and vote Conservative next time around. Fear has a way of evaporating when its perceived cause dissipates.

[BubberMiley]

Fear has a way of evaporating when its perceived cause dissipates.

Or fear turns into resignation when we wake up and realize we are in a neocon dystopia with nukes fueling the oil sands into environmental catastrophe and wars being waged for corporate profiteering. The voters would be appalled by the con agenda, and Harper knows it. But all he needs to do is be patient and do it incrementally. As Bluth says: baby steps.

[jdobbin]

Or fear turns into resignation when we wake up and realize we are in a neocon dystopia with nukes fueling the oil sands into environmental catastrophe and wars being waged for corporate profiteering. The voters would be appalled by the con agenda, and Harper knows it. But all he needs to do is be patient and do it incrementally. As Bluth says: baby steps.

We are already hearing from people on the right here suggesting the support the Tories eventually gave Bali was part of the hidden agenda of opposition to global warming.

[capricorn]

Or fear turns into resignation when we wake up and realize we are in a neocon dystopia with nukes fueling the oil sands into environmental catastrophe and wars being waged for corporate profiteering.

A great plot for a scifi movie. Perhaps you should transmit this gem to the Liberals to use in their next election campaign ads.

(slow drumbeat)

...nukes fueling the oil sands

...in Alberta

...explosions destroying cities

...all for profit

We're not making this up.

CHOOSE YOUR CANADA DESTINY!!!

[jefferiah]

If the CBC market is so small and the network so unpopular among the masses, I wonder why the conservatives would never have the balls to express in an election campaign their intention to get rid of it.

If the CBC market is so luscious and loyal I wonder why would they have any remarkable fears about having the umbilical cord cut. If CBC radio is such a great station in "some urban markets" then they could do quite well privately in those particular areas.

But actually your question is a good one. For instance, had you asked me about two years ago, "Should we get rid of the CBC?" My answer would have been, "No." Baldly put it sounds quite bad to the average person. But given consideration of the tax dollars put into it, and the fact that its mostly a great deal of shows that nobody really watches. I mean seriously, the fact that The Hour gets the funding it does and has very few viewers does not make sense, and it shows that CBC is not responsible funding. And that is just one example. There are a whole slew of CBC shows which are really second-rate and in America they would belong on PBS with Are You Being Served and BallyKissAngel?

So the idea has to be introduced to the public and explained to them aptly before such a move could be made. Personally I think the arguments against subsidization of the CBC, or at least the idea of making some cuts, are pretty good. Those ideas given mainstream exposure could catch on quite well, since there is a great deal of logic behind them. A little less money for shows like The Hour and Dragons Den, which few of us are watching----could translate to a little more money for something important which all of us benefit from.

Edited December 17, 2007 by jefferiah

[August1991]

This thread's going all over the place but so what...

CBC was begging for a direction from the government.

It seems unseemly all the complaining we see here on the boards about CBC when the government is unwilling to do anything.

Harper appointed Hubert Lacroix as the new CEO of CBC/Radio-Canada effective Jan 2008. That seems a good place to start if you're going to make any changes. Lacroix was with Stikeman Elliot (as was Marc Lalonde) but that doesn't mean much.

I would imagine that Michel Fortier had a hand in that nomination. Radio-Canada works well (more or less) and nobody is calling for radical surgery. It tends to be pro-PQ and Montreal (Plateau)-centred but that's not a big deal.

The CBC on the other hand is different.

Incremental conservatism is what the majority of Conservative voters want. Some want it sooner than later but Harper knows better than to jump in with two feet.

My point is that many voters prefer now a politician who stands for something specific. But the specific position must be intelligent and defendable. Voters are tired of bafflegab.

Harper was right when he said he would cut the GST. It was specific and meant something. I think Harper has to aim a little higher. For example, Harper's staunch support for the Afghan mission is something that voters understand. It is specific and means something.

My fear is that "incremental conservatism" could turn into wishy-washy nonsense and then the Conservatives would get damned by their supporters and damned by the Liberals/NDP for hiding the *scary, scary* agenda. A lose/lose situation.

IMV, truly successful politicians in a democracy state their case intelligently and clearly. (That's why I admired Rae when he referred to "crappy right wing policies". I thought Dion would also stand for something but he seems to be mumbling for the past year or so.)

----

Anyway, a federal majority is based on regional blocks and Harper has to improve among one of three groups: urban, women or Quebec outside of Montreal. Ideology isn't really a factor here.

[jdobbin]

If the CBC market is so luscious and loyal I wonder why would they have any remarkable fears about having the umbilical cord cut. If CBC radio is such a great station in "some urban markets" then they could do quite well privately in those particular areas.

They do well in the market because they don't have to chase after the advertisers and they don't have to confine themselves to certain music genres. They leave the very profitable radio industry to itself and do their own things.

The right wing says two things: If the CBC is successful, it should be sold. If it is unsuccessful: it should be shut down. Quite simply, they have no room for a public broadcaster. It is too bad that they just can't say that in an election.

[jdobbin]

This thread's going all over the place but so what...

Harper appointed Hubert Lacroix as the new CEO of CBC/Radio-Canada effective Jan 2008. That seems a good place to start if you're going to make any changes. Lacroix was with Stikeman Elliot (as was Marc Lalonde) but that doesn't mean much.

I would imagine that Michel Fortier had a hand in that nomination. Radio-Canada works well (more or less) and nobody is calling for radical surgery. It tends to be pro-PQ and Montreal (Plateau)-centred but that's not a big deal.

The CBC on the other hand is different.

My point is that many voters prefer now a politician who stands for something specific. But the specific position must be intelligent and defendable. Voters are tired of bafflegab.

Harper was right when he said he would cut the GST. It was specific and meant something. I think Harper has to aim a little higher. For example, Harper's staunch support for the Afghan mission is something that voters understand. It is specific and means something.

My fear is that "incremental conservatism" could turn into wishy-washy nonsense and then the Conservatives would get damned by their supporters and damned by the Liberals/NDP for hiding the *scary, scary* agenda. A lose/lose situation.

IMV, truly successful politicians in a democracy state their case intelligently and clearly. (That's why I admired Rae when he referred to "crappy right wing policies". I thought Dion would also stand for something but he seems to be mumbling for the past year or so.)

----

Anyway, a federal majority is based on regional blocks and Harper has to improve among one of three groups: urban, women or Quebec outside of Montreal. Ideology isn't really a factor here.

It is Radio Canada that is implicated in feeding questions to the Liberals. That works well for you?

I am all for an end to the bafflegab. Tell Harper to say whether he supports the CBC or whether he will end it or restructure it. If he restructures it, what is his vision for the broadcaster?

As I said, I never came up with the incremental conservatism statement. Some people here use it regularly and think it is a good idea.

[August1991]

It is Radio Canada that is implicated in feeding questions to the Liberals. That works well for you?

That's not what I read. Lapierre said the questions came from the CBC.

Anyway, I couldn't care less where an MP gets her or his questions. MPs stand on their words - whatever the origin.

In this forum, Greg asked us to submit questions to ask Jack Layton in an online interview. Was Greg being unethical to do this? Did Greg explain to Layton that a question came from "MikeDavid"? If he didn't, was that unethical?

Jean Lapierre is a gossip monger and that's what I have taken from this little episode.

[jdobbin]

That's not what I read. Lapierre said the questions came from the CBC.

Anyway, I couldn't care less where an MP gets her or his questions. MPs stand on their words - whatever the origin.

In this forum, Greg asked us to submit questions to ask Jack Layton in an online interview. Was Greg being unethical to do this? Did Greg explain to Layton that a question came from "MikeDavid"? If he didn't, was that unethical?

Jean Lapierre is a gossip monger and that's what I have taken from this little episode.

The investigation is now focused on SRC Parliamentary reporters according to several media blogs, some of which are CBC reporters.

While you might not care where the question came from, others on the right wing seem to think it was CBC English that was responsible and want retribution.

[capricorn]

My point is that many voters prefer now a politician who stands for something specific. But the specific position must be intelligent and defendable. Voters are tired of bafflegab.

The Liberals conditioned the voters with bafflegab, i.e. promise lots and deliver little. I find Harper is much more direct with Canadians than was Chretien or Martin. It's not so much that Harper's directness is frightening voters it's that they're not used to his style and they are used to being duped. We're in a period of adjustment to leadership style and truthfully, Harper is still learning to be a leader.

Anyway, a federal majority is based on regional blocks and Harper has to improve among one of three groups: urban, women or Quebec outside of Montreal. Ideology isn't really a factor here.

That's the key. Oh, don't forget the seniors' vote. After all, it is the fastest growing demographic that should not be ignored. As far as ideology, it's a factor in the sense that veering too far to the right would be suicidal.

[jdobbin]

That's the key. Oh, don't forget the seniors' vote. After all, it is the fastest growing demographic that should not be ignored. As far as ideology, it's a factor in the sense that veering too far to the right would be suicidal.

Allan Gregg said on Thursday that the Tories seem to have given up on the urban markets. It was during the CBC panel which is still online now.

The majority of seniors live in urban areas according to the recent Statscan survey.

[Michael Bluth]

August you are right this thread is all over the place.

Anyway, a federal majority is based on regional blocks and Harper has to improve among one of three groups: urban, women or Quebec outside of Montreal. Ideology isn't really a factor here.

Harper has shown some results in Quebec outside Montreal that would leave him in majority territory. Realistically a well-distributed 38% will get the CPC there as it did the Liberals in 1997. If the CPC can consistently hold some numbers in Quebec then they are doing well.

You have to be more specific than urban. You aren't really saying that Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver are the only urban parts of the country are you? The CPC hold the vast majority of seats in the fourth through sixth biggest urban centres in the country Calgary, Edmonton and Ottawa.

In this forum, Greg asked us to submit questions to ask Jack Layton in an online interview. Was Greg being unethical to do this? Did Greg explain to Layton that a question came from "MikeDavid"? If he didn't, was that unethical?

Was Greg's interview of Layton under oath?

Come on August raise your game. What an incredibly weak analogy.

Edited December 17, 2007 by Michael Bluth