Is the CBC biased? - Our tax money at work...

[August1991]

I have no objection to paying taxes for a State TV/radio network. But this network should provide all sides to a story. The CBC doesn't do that.

IMO, English CBC is "progressive", "do-gooder", "social-worker", fix/help the world, educative, pro-State intervention, anti-Bush Republican, anti-Reform/Alliance. Canada is a Catholic country and the CBC is our Catholic priest admonition, or Church appeal for assistance..

I enjoy the CBC! It's smart. But sometimes, I WANT TO HEAR THE OTHER SIDE OF THE STORY. And I never do. Where is Luther?

CBC types think the stock market is a rigged horse race. Pathetic. Like Chomsky university intellectuals, CBC producers don't even stop to wonder why others take interest. I have yet to hear a CBC report that genuinely explains stock market trading. Instead, the CBC honestly explains, to its credit, social domestic Canadian stuff.

CBC producers take great interest in why 13 year girls bully one another, or why Canadians poets win Governor-General prizes. TV/radio controlled by your Grade 11 English treacher. Imagine.

Now, French Radio-Canada, is another story. For domestic Quebec, they do it well. Radio-Canada reports well the federalist/separatist story although this drives the Chretien federalists crazy. But R-C is anti-Bush, of course, and pro-governement.

(Why is Quebec still part of Canada? Radio-Canada and the PQ favour government solutions.)

[August1991]

I'm not alone!

Sean Twist (?) on the CBC

I have never heard of this columnist and his take is that CBC Radio is smarmy. (I agree...) But my point was the bias.

On second thought, CBC Radio resembles some kind of self-help, self empowering women's magazine. (Can I say that?) It's the kind of stuff you see in the "Lifestyle Section" of a newspaper.

[French CBC this morning had a discussion about stock portfolios that made no smarmy remarks about Enron and so on. Maybe there's hope for the English side...]

[maplesyrup]

Of course the CBC is biased, just like you are. There is no such thing as objectivity when it comes to human beings.

What is with the business types who make money their God? Isn't having every newspaper, radio and TV station besides the CBC to promote capitalism enough for you?

It seems that the business community sometimes borders on fascism, where no other point of view is tolerated. :angry:

[Michael Hardner]

I have never heard the case for CBC bias quoted quite this way before, August1991. You have put your finger on what bothers me about the CBC, IMO.

It's not so much that they have an overt political bias as much as a personality bias. As you point out, it's a teacher's network. No wonder it's not that popular.

It would be refreshing to hear the voices of people who aren't so think-y on CBC radio.

[maplesyrup]

Politically speaking the CBC is basically 100% Liberal, so that accounts for some of the discomfort for some of us, both on the left, and on the right.

Seriously though, don't you think the right wing gets enough coverage in the capitalist press?

[August1991]

Politically speaking the CBC is basically 100% Liberal.

Hein? What planet are you living on? (English CBC is teacher union socialist.)

MS, I like reading your postings and I'm even happy you start new threads with titles like "NDP preparing to form minority government".

What is with the business types who make money their God? Isn't having every newspaper, radio and TV station besides the CBC to promote capitalism enough for you?

You're right MS. "Capitalists" can get all the money they want voluntarily. Socialists have to resort to "theft" (taxes), because that's the only way they can get money. That's Socialism! The only way a socialist radio network can exist is by taxes!

But when it comes to radio, I prefer to pay taxes (honest!) rather than to pay higher prices (and listen to irritating advertising). So, I happily pay taxes to hear the socialist viewpoint on radio. No problem so far. But can I not sometimes hear the other viewpoint? After all, I'm forced to pay.

[CanadaRocks]

"Capitalists" can get all the money they want voluntarily. Socialists have to resort to "theft" (taxes), because that's the only way they can get money.

When it comes to capitalism, all I have ever seen is thieves who usually use a pen, rather than a gun.

I remember a poli sci professor explaining to my class once a concept of business thievery. Perhaps you know more about it than I, but it went something like this..

A businessman hires men to work in his factory. Together they work to ensure mutual success. As the men grow more proficient in their job at the assemblyline, he moves a lever that increases the speed of the belt by an unnoticable amount. The men do not detect they are working harder though they are, yet for the amount of work they do an increasing amount of product is being turned out and profits grow while the labor wage remains stagnant.

Ultimately the factory owner can afford technological advances that will remove various aspects of the labour force and increase profits yet further. Bit by bit the labor force is phased out in any and all area's it can be.

Without the aid of those men (or women) in the labor force, that businessman would never have gotten anywhere. It was the partnership with them that made it possible. He has stolen from his men and they were not knowledgeable enough to understand it, or in a position to prevent it.

[August1991]

A businessman hires men to work in his factory.

Your little story assumes that 1)the workers are not very bright (and don't notice what's going on) and 2) there is no businessman across the street also looking to hire workers.

I am always amazed to notice how leftist take such a condescending view of the very people they espouse to protect.

Ultimately the factory owner can afford technological advances that will remove various aspects of the labour force and increase profits yet further.

The idea that new technology eliminates jobs is one of the oldest myths around. True, the invention of cars meant horse traders lost their jobs as horse traders; so, they found other jobs doing something else. That's how countries get richer.

Incidentally, the myth now goes under the name of "out-sourcing" or "free trade".

[Black Dog]

That the CBC has a left-wing bias is a canard that's as old as the hills. What I don't see are any examples of this bias (that's not to ay bias does not exist. As has already been pointed out, there's no such animal as unbiased journalism) in action.

Furthermore, is CBC any more biased than, say, CanWestGlobal?

However, even if such bias does, in fact, exist, the next question is whether the bias is institutional or the product of the sensibilities of individual reporters and commentators.

[August1991]

Furthermore, is CBC any more biased than, say, CanWestGlobal?

I am not forced to give money to CanWestGlobal. But I am forced to give money to the CBC. There is a critical difference.

What I don't see are any examples of this bias

I don't believe I have ever heard a CBC news report or comment that ever presented Bush in a good light. Ever. But I have heard many, many negative comments, snide remarks.

About half the US population voted for Bush. According to the CBC, they are all morons. Surely there is a legitimate second side to the story.

This is only one example.

[Black Dog]

I don't believe I have ever heard a CBC news report or comment that ever presented Bush in a good light. Ever. But I have heard many, many negative comments, snide remarks.

About half the US population voted for Bush. According to the CBC, they are all morons. Surely there is a legitimate second side to the story.

This is only one example.

That's not an example, that's hearsay.

I am not forced to give money to CanWestGlobal. But I am forced to give money to the CBC. There is a critical difference.

Indeed, that is the key distinction. But could it be that your discomfort with the CBC's "bias" is primarily becaus eits a bias you do not share? In other words, were CBC (which, in my mind, seems to do a decent job of balancing opinions from across the spectrum) more like CanWest in its slant, would you still be complaining?

[August1991]

But could it be that your discomfort with the CBC's "bias" is primarily becaus eits a bias you do not share?

Absolutely. I have always made a point of reading contrarian opinions. IMO, the CBC is a treasure trove of nonsense that invites counter arguments. And at least, I can try to understand the world view of these numbskulls.

But can't they put on a right wing whacko every so often? (If only to shake things up.)

[odie441]

I have to completely agree with you respect to the CBC, but have to disagree with your views on Quebec. I used to think that way until I spent 5 years living in the heart of separation country the Saganay. I discovered they are not anti-Canada, but very patriotic towards their own beliefs of what encompasses their culture. Their zeal to separate is not because they hate Canada but they want to be recognized for who they are. The generation that grew up under the thumb of Les Anglais are slowly falling to the wayside and the new generation of Quebecois realize the tremendous advantages of being a part of Canada. I honestly believe th elast referendum was the swan song of the sepratist movement in QC. Only the diehards will hang on as the general population moves towards the center. The era of Rene Levesque and the seratists died when he did. Think of QC as a fiercly proud ethnic community within the grand scale of canada.

[Black Dog]

Absolutely. I have always made a point of reading contrarian opinions. IMO, the CBC is a treasure trove of nonsense that invites counter arguments. And at least, I can try to understand the world view of these numbskulls.

So you'd be happy with a publicly funded broadcast body that had a right-wing slant? Well, at least you're honest.

Personally I find the claims of CBC's leftist bias to be waaaay overblown (usually-surprise!-by rabid right wingers). I find the CBC takes a stadid, centerist approach. They have a fairly conservative outlook on domestic affairs (particularily economic matters) and a slight leftward tilt on foreign affairs. In other words, the public broadcaster seems to reflect the ethos of the electorate, which is ppretty much what one would expect.

But can't they put on a right wing whacko every so often? (If only to shake things up.)

Rex Murphy, though he's too verbose for most right wingers to understand.

[idealisttotheend]

The primary argument against the CBC seems to be that it is funded by the government through taxes. The thinking, usually espoused by it's detractors is that this is forcing people to pay for the CBC while people are not forced to pay for private broadcasters.

The question, and it applies to the free market economy in general, is where do these private broadcasters get their money? From advertising, paid for by private companies. Where do the companies get this money, from you and me, (the people who buy there products). You and me, the same people who pay the taxes which help to support the CBC.

Now the argument goes that we are legally compelled to pay taxes and we are not legally compelled to buy products from companies who buy advertising. But from a practical point of view this is completely irrelevant. Whether we are legally compelled to buy products or not we have no choice. We need food, we need clothing, we need banking services, we need transport. Name one grocery chain that does not advertise, one bank, one credit union or department store. Nobody can be reasonably expected not to purchase things from these business, if we didn't we would starve or not be able to cash our pay cheques. If you do find a business that does not advertise, it is without a doubt a small business and the economics of scale ensure that you will not pay a lower price for the product you receive and that in terms of practicality you will end up shopping at the larger, advertising business more often than not. Can any individual make an informed choice about how much of the purchase price of any given good or service goes to advertising?

People who dislike the CBC, usually because of it's editorial position, complain that they are being forced to pay for it. I myself don't agree with CanWest Global more often than not. Do I have the option when I shop somewhere that advertises on one of their platforms to not pay the cost of advertising? Can I get two cents taken off the price of my hamburger when I go to McDonalds because I do not support CanWest? If I can't, am I then to be denied the ability to purchase a Big Mac. And can I reasonably choose simply not to bank with any bank that advertises on CanWest, are there any banks who don't?. Furthermore, if I do not like Global or the National Post it follows that I do not know who does and doesn't advertise there. How can I even know if I am or am not supporting a business that advertises with them. I contend that any average individual cannot make a reasonable and informed choice about whether or not to support companies that advertise on any given network. When you consider that many companies advertise on multiple networks including possibly the CBC it becomes even more convoluted. Therefore a reasonable individual is no more able to "freely choose" to support a private network than they are the CBC, (certainly I don't feel that I can)

The argument for and against a public broadcaster is the same Left Right argument that occurs in every sector of the modern economy. It is not a matter of who pays for it, though the companies in question will do everything to convince us that it is. We pay the taxes and we buy the products, all funds come from the individual at some point. It is simply a matter of who controls the funds that we give them. Is it the government or a private company who decides how to disperse these funds.

The CBC is essential because as a goverment agency it answeres to goals and objective above and beyond simply what advertisers will pay for. I admit that it can lean left sometimes (probably because of this independance) but there's the SUN chain and the National Post to name two that are unabashedly on the right and the CBC can serve to provide balance. People argue that if it can't make it economically by selling advertising than the market has decided it is not needed. But media (and specifically the CBC) is not always about being a simple popularity contest.

Take for example information programming. It is in the interest of any democracy that the people who make the decisions (the voters) have access to 'hard' information in sufficient quantities and from sufficient sources if they want it. More people may prefer the latest reality show to the Fifth Estate, or a newscast that focuses on local crime rather than broad national issues, but it is in the public interest that the people who do want this information get it even if they are in the minority so they can make informed decisions about 'the big issues' and participate in democracy to a higher degree than their neighbours might. This programming is essential and is best delivered by a public broadcaster to both allow these programs to be seen irregardless of how many Big Macs they sell and to maintain a greater level of journalistic independence. Yes people complain about the bias of the CBC and that it is beholden to one government or another but then no one complains about the National Post's bias simply because the National Post makes no claim to not having a bias in the first place. The CBC does try (and often succeeds) in mainainting a reasonable degree of objectivity.

Just had to get that off my chest

[August1991]

Now the argument goes that we are legally compelled to pay taxes and we are not legally compelled to buy products from companies who buy advertising. But from a practical point of view this is completely irrelevant.

Practical or not, there's a big difference. It's at the heart of life, democracy. Consider two situations:

1) You have a rich uncle. He gets you a neat job with a business friend and says "Ignore what that jerk says. He can't fire you because I'm paying your salary. But show up for work!"

2) You don't have a rich uncle. You find a neat job but the boss is a jerk. You show up for work and you do what the jerk asks.

IdealEnd, which situation would you prefer?

Just had to get that off my chest

Feels good, I agree.

[idealisttotheend]

Obviously I'd prefer #1 myself but would certainly not expect it. But I don't see how it applies to this situation. Please expand.

[August1991]

In situation #2, if the boss is truly a jerk, you'd probably quit and move on.

In situation #1, you can ignore the jerk. So you stay, and do what? There is a disconnect between you and your boss.

The CBC is like situation #1. So are many jobs in the civil service.

Getting back to your quote.

Now the argument goes that we are legally compelled to pay taxes and we are not legally compelled to buy products from companies who buy advertising. But from a practical point of view this is completely irrelevant.

I can't imagine anything more relevant.

To get you to give me money voluntarily, I have to offer you something that you consider better. That makes me feel good and useful. (Between the products you buy, the store, the producer, the advertiser and the TV, there are a chain of voluntary relations.)

If I just take your money, well, what have I done? Anything?

It's the difference between a politician who comes to power by a free vote and a leader who comes to power by a coup.

[idealisttotheend]

Thank you for clearing the uncle thing up, I appreciate it. Yes I suppose that civil service jobs are more secure (though Mr. Cherry, Mr. Milewski, Ms Gartner, the casts of various CBC sponsered series, CBC camera operaters that have been automized and others may disagree). Now that I think about it maybe with the CBC they are not.

The civil service as whole though definately does have a problem as the current scandals plauging the federal governement are a testement to. You yourself though admitted that you like the CBC and that it is "smart," it can't therefor be that bad despite the proverbial rich uncle. I myself don't find it to be a lower quality than the private networks, usually. Job security can be an asset as journalists are more free to say what they like.

To get you to give me money voluntarily, I have to offer you something that you consider better.

Or do you simply have to offer me something I need? I need food, I may give you the money voluntarily only insofar as I choose not to starve, use a bank, buy clothing etc.

That makes me feel good and useful

There is no reason a civil servant shouldn't feel good and useful. Not because they have simply kept their jobs for another day but because they have done whatever it is they do for the public good and in a professional manner. This may sound strange for this generation but in the 50s and 60s it was expected and rewarded.

.

It's the difference between a politician who comes to power by a free vote and a leader who comes to power by a coup.

Indeed! I can elect the people who have final resposibility for the CBC, I can participate in defining it's goals and values, it's funding level, hell I can complain about it's "bias" and someone will have to listen. What did the young Asper (is it David?) do to get his power? Who elected him in a free vote? What can I do to get him replaced as head of CanWest global or change that network's editorial position on Israel for example? Not buy his paper? I already do that and it doesn't help. Go to the competition, what competition (except nationally of course). Even if there is competition (does the SUN chain count?) they get money from mostly the same companies CanWest does.

Seems to me I have a bigger say with the CBC. Which is probably why the CBC is so often talked about, we know that we do have some small say in how it is run. Nobody bothers to even sugest that we have a say over the Edmonton Journal so why talk about it?

[August1991]

Seems to me I have a bigger say with the CBC. Which is probably why the CBC is so often talked about, we know that we do have some small say in how it is run. Nobody bothers to even sugest that we have a say over the Edmonton Journal so why talk about it?

On the contrary, everyone talks about the weather - but we can't control it.

Which do you prefer, a democracy where you vote every four years or where you vote every day?

More important. Do you prefer a democracy where you can express your "feeling" and somehow make a difference by your actions? (How much do you want to protect the environment? How to do this?)

Markets with prices do all of this much better than elections. In fact, math was invented so that people could co-operate together collectively through markets, not elections.

True, math is hard but please think a little. You vote in an election once every four years or so. But you "vote" for something every day when you buy. And if you buy, you can show your "feeling" - depending on the price!

According to you, which voting method, markets or elections, is better?

[idealisttotheend]

I guess you are right about the weather but I think it goes down hill from there.

According to you, which voting method, markets or elections, is better?

Elections sir. Always elections. By your own logic we should throw out every provision we have against bribing people who hold public office. The market could decide who gets what law passed based on how much they can afford to bribe any given politician. Now the market may indeed have a lot of influence in too many instances given the recent leadership conventions of the Liberals and the Alliance/Conservatives and the sponsorship scandal. But I contend this is the worst example of how things should be run while you seem to think that it is the best.

Furthermore by leaving voting to the markets it, by definition, ensures that people with more money get more votes while people with no money get no votes. In practicality, this is often the case but again I submit that this is the worst example of democracy and not the best. Of course we could argue about how the market distributes the 'votes' in the market but that is another argument. Having the 'vote' go to people with money only though is another reason the CBC is essential. All the 'left wing' causes that CBC is purported to defend are not in the ecomomic interest of private networks to report on and therefore issues affecting people with insufficient amounts of money may not be discussed. Homeless people or the mentally ill have no money and don't buy things that are advertised on the news therefore it is not in a private networks interest to report on things that affect them.

Markets with prices do all of this much better than elections. In fact, math was invented so that people could co-operate together collectively through markets, not elections.

You have stubbornly and consistently refused to deal with my argument that I cannot choose not to support CanWest Global. Who are the advertisers that I should not support? If I buy a product from any business that does advertise with CanWest does that mean I necessarily support them, that I want to contribute to the business’s advertising budget? How can I choose a bank that does not advertise, for example?

Markets are designed to be competitive not co-operative. If they were not competitive they could not function and competition is diametrically opposite co-operation.

True, math is hard but please think a little. You vote in an election once every four years or so. But you "vote" for something every day when you buy. And if you buy, you can show your "feeling" - depending on the price!

Indeed math is hard, which must explain why so many people misunderstand markets so badly. Again I reiterate my argument that I can do nothing to affect CanWest by purchasing decisions that are indirect to CanWest itself. Therefore I have no vote in the market. Where is the price difference on the food I buy or my bank's service charges based on where or whether or not they advertise and how much they spend? Which one doesn't advertise on a private network (or the CBC itself)?!?

Or do you seriously contend that anybody makes a decision to buy or not buy something (or what price they are willing to pay) based whether or not they support the media in which said company advertises? Do you? If people do, how does CanWest know this? If I want to do this myself, is there some practical way for me to do it? I certainly can't find any way, short of buying nothing.

[August1991]

Markets are designed to be competitive not co-operative. If they were not competitive they could not function and competition is diametrically opposite co-operation.

Markets are designed to be price competitive, not competitive. There is a fundamental difference between competition (as in sports) and price competition (as in a price war). Price competition leads to cooperation. Competition leads ultimately to, well, war. Without a doubt, math and prices were the greatest invention of the past 10,000 years or so.

You have stubbornly and consistently refused to deal with my argument that I cannot choose not to support CanWest Global. Who are the advertisers that I should not support? If I buy a product from any business that does advertise with CanWest does that mean I necessarily support them, that I want to contribute to the business’s advertising budget? How can I choose a bank that does not advertise, for example?

For heaven's sake. Will your single vote matter in the upcoming federal election? So what makes you think your "market vote" matters? Well, instead of looking at the question from your perspective, look at it from the perspective of CanWest's advertisers (or the Liberal Party). What do you do to get votes?

Do you think the Liberals would like an election every day? But CanWest advertisers face essentially that. Customers (including you) can choose to buy or not every day.

Furthermore by leaving voting to the markets it, by definition, ensures that people with more money get more votes while people with no money get no votes.

Here, you raise a very good point. It's the question of fairness. And

this problem is much, much bigger than what you say.

By pure chance of genetics, Brad Pitt is an attractive guy. If he walks into a bar, he turns heads. Is that fair? Let's not kid ourselves: your life and my life were influenced by the families we were born into - pure chance. Is that fair?

To answer your very good point, I'll state my opinion. Societies that tend to decide collectively through markets (and let rich people have more votes) tend to be societies that are in fact richer and more fair. Societies that tend to decide collectively through elections (one man, one vote) tend to be societies that are in fact poorer and less fair.

But IdealEnd, you make a good point. On the fairness issue, I think we should steal "votes" from the rich and give them to the poor. In particular, we should do this for kids. Kids get their family purely by chance, and can do nothing about it.

[idealisttotheend]

For heaven's sake. Will your single vote matter in the upcoming federal election? So what makes you think your "market vote" matters?

Indeed my vote does matter in the election, however little. It would mean considerably more with PR or possibly if it were illegal to publish polls and I didn't think I knew who was going to win. But it still matters.

My market vote does not matter at all regarding Global.

Since I don't watch I don't know if I am 'voting' for it or not by supporting one of their advertisers.

Even if I buy a product from an advertiser it doesn't mean I support the media they advertise in.

Global has no way of knowing if I do or don't support them based on whether or not I support an advertiser since their is no feedback mechanism.

If the buisness in question supplies me with a necessity of life or something that I cannot reasonably do without, I do not have the choice not to buy from them (if their competitors also advertise which is ususally the case).

Very very few people choose to buy or not buy something based on who and whether or not they advertise with or think about it all.

Therefore I contend that I have considerably more choice about how much of my money the CBC gets than I do with Global. And that I do not give any money to Global TV voluntarily but that they still get it even though they are a private network.

Am I being stubborn? I hope so, that has always really bothered me.

Thanks for everyone's time (especially August 1991's) it was fun.

[CPCFTW]

To provide an example to the point August is making... the market "voted" for Apple and Google over Blackberry pretty damn quickly.

The problem for the left is that they don't understand the market at all, so there is a disconnect between their social values and the values of the market.

Want to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and reduce our dependence on oil? According to many on this board, 60% of Canadians (those who voted NDP/Liberal) believe in this. Then why aren't 60% of Canadians using public transportation or driving a Prius or hybrid?

Want to legislate maximum interest rates on credit cards? How about you stop using credit cards?

Upset about jobs being shipped overseas? Why don't the "60%" of Canadians who don't believe in globalization only buy Canadian made products and services? Part of the "1%" are on the left as well. If they could manufacture goods and get 60% of Canadians to buy their products, then you could all hold hands and sing kumbaya.

The problem with the left is that they think of themselves as a victim of the markets rather than a participant. You are free to buy products or use services from whoever you want, and you are free to invest money in whatever companies shares and bonds you want.

If you 60% liberal/ndp voters want to unite and start a Canadian TV manufacturer that only employs Canadians, you can all invest in the IPO/shares, and be consumers buying $5000 TVs instead of Asian made $500 TVs.

You have the power to effect change, you just choose not to and want the government to coerce others to change for you.

[CPCFTW]

Indeed my vote does matter in the election, however little. It would mean considerably more with PR or possibly if it were illegal to publish polls and I didn't think I knew who was going to win. But it still matters.

My market vote does not matter at all regarding Global.

Since I don't watch I don't know if I am 'voting' for it or not by supporting one of their advertisers.

Even if I buy a product from an advertiser it doesn't mean I support the media they advertise in.

Global has no way of knowing if I do or don't support them based on whether or not I support an advertiser since their is no feedback mechanism.

If the buisness in question supplies me with a necessity of life or something that I cannot reasonably do without, I do not have the choice not to buy from them (if their competitors also advertise which is ususally the case).

Very very few people choose to buy or not buy something based on who and whether or not they advertise with or think about it all.

Therefore I contend that I have considerably more choice about how much of my money the CBC gets than I do with Global. And that I do not give any money to Global TV voluntarily but that they still get it even though they are a private network.

Am I being stubborn? I hope so, that has always really bothered me.

Thanks for everyone's time (especially August 1991's) it was fun.

Sure you can vote for it by not watching Global in the first place. Advertisers wont pay for advertising if people aren't watching. You are looking at things backwards.