The CBC -What to do

[nicky10013]

I don't imagine there are good references for the amount of money spent on the arts in the USSR, spent on urban beautification and the like.

This is what made me think you were talking about diversion of funds, rather than prioritization:

Nothing was spent on the arts. Everything in the USSR that could be defined as art was propaganda to bolster the regime.

As for the CBC, I don't see where the problem lies. Though I understand fears of bias, what's better or worse. A news channel which determines what to cover by the notion of "bias" as determined by the government of the day, or an independent team of editors. I'd rather go with the editors. Furthermore, I frankly don't see how CBC is anywhere close to the bias as shown by CTV or Global. To me, it's over-reaction. The CBC carries a piece calling out the conservative government and the right wing in this country explode with the "conventional" yet unproven wisdom that the CBC is out to get them. I've seen them carry numerous articles on their website and tv spots that weren't friendly to the Liberals or NDPers. They also pay right wing pundits to come on as well.

That doesn't mean the CBC can't do better.

[Bob]

I don't imagine there are good references for the amount of money spent on the arts in the USSR, spent on urban beautification and the like.

Forget about references, we know that the Soviet Union, despite all of its ills, did contribute to the development of world-class athletics, ballet, opera, classical music, and to a lesser extent film and pop music. I'm sure I'm missing many categories but this is what quickly comes to mind.

This is what made me think you were talking about diversion of funds, rather than prioritization:

What what's the difference between diversion of funds and prioritization of funds? I assume the two terms are pretty much synonymous in this context. Put another way, we need to prioritize needs in order to determine where to divert funds.

Edited May 10, 2010 by Bob

[Bob]

Nothing was spent on the arts. Everything in the USSR that could be defined as art was propaganda to bolster the regime.

Sorry, you're just wrong. Of course development of the arts served a strong propaganda purpose in the Soviet Union, but that doesn't change the fact that many art forms thrived within the Soviet Union (sometimes connected to government support, and sometimes in spite of it). Of course there was always a strong hand from the oppressive regime to manage the messages that came from these outlets, but great arts were still developed.

I know Michael Hardner didn't send out this red herring in a dishonest way, but the suggestion that the Soviet Union was utilitarian (it wasn't) and devoid of any cultural colour, and that my suggestions are distantly connected to this ultra-pragmatic approach (they aren't), is simply incorrect.

As for the CBC, I don't see where the problem lies. Though I understand fears of bias, what's better or worse. A news channel which determines what to cover by the notion of "bias" as determined by the government of the day, or an independent team of editors. I'd rather go with the editors. Furthermore, I frankly don't see how CBC is anywhere close to the bias as shown by CTV or Global. To me, it's over-reaction. The CBC carries a piece calling out the conservative government and the right wing in this country explode with the "conventional" yet unproven wisdom that the CBC is out to get them. I've seen them carry numerous articles on their website and tv spots that weren't friendly to the Liberals or NDPers. They also pay right wing pundits to come on as well.

That doesn't mean the CBC can't do better.

Aside from the debate over perceived bias at the CBC, what about the debate over whether or not we need to subsidize media in this country? That's the discussion I'm engaging in this thread.

[Michael Hardner]

Forget about references, we know that the Soviet Union, despite all of its ills, did contribute to the development of world-class athletics, ballet, opera, classical music, and to a lesser extent film and pop music. I'm sure I'm missing many categories but this is what quickly comes to mind.

And ?

What what's the difference between diversion of funds and prioritization of funds? I assume the two terms are pretty much synonymous in this context. Put another way, we need to prioritize needs in order to determine where to divert funds.

Ok. I guess you're right. I don't hear the term 'diversion' very often so I guess I assumed it meant cutting off programs somewhere... allocation/prioritization/diversion... all the same I suppose.

[Bob]

And ?

What I'm saying is that it's inaccurate to suggest that my take on this media/arts funding issue is a slippery slope perspective that might lead Canada into a Soviet Union-esque regime. Your supposition that the Soviet Union was utilitarian isn't really accurate, as it did contribute to the development of the arts and athletic and other things that aren't puritanically practical.

Anyways cheers.

[August1991]

I don't even know where to start:

Is the CBC biased?

CBC president Hubert Lacroix aims to find out.

According to the Ottawa Sun:

The CBC has commissioned a study to determine whether its news is biased, the president of the public broadcaster told the Senate finance committee this week.

“Our job — and we take it seriously — is to ensure that the information that we put out is fair and unbiased in everything that we do,” CBC President Hubert Lacroix said.

He said CBC asked outside experts to conduct an independent review of its news gathering and delivery last year.

Lacroix’s comments come on the heels of weeks of criticism from Conservative loyalists who disagreed with the CBC’s decision not to acknowledge that one of its house pollsters and frequent guest on the air also donated substantial sums to the Liberal Party. There’s more on that here.

The study itself was commissioned in January 2009. Results are expected this fall.

What do you think? Is the CBC biased?

Inside the CBC - Official blog of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation

[August1991]

Yes, let's forget that over half a million french speaking people live in Ontario and New Brunswick alone.

A common criticsm of Radio-Canada is that it's Quebec (Montreal plateau) centric, just as CBC is Toronto centric. Edited May 15, 2010 by August1991

[Smallc]

A common criticsm of Radio-Canada is that it's Quebec centric.

Well that very well may be. After all, about 7M French speaking people live in Quebec.

[normanchateau]

I think that CTV News is far better than CBC TV news now.

I think the growing right-wing bias of CBC is making many former viewers switch the channel.

Why did CBC have a need to hire former Harper spokesman Kory Teneycke?

And of the three member CBC political panel, we have Andrew Coyne of the right-leaning Maclean's, and Allan Gregg, who polls for the Conservatives. Hardly a middle-of-the-road political panel. CBC's chief pundit is Rex Murphy, now also at the right-leaning National Post. And then there are former journalists in the Harper government: member of Parliament Peter Kent, and Senators Mike Duffy and Pamela Wallin -- they all had serious CBC careers. If all this doesn't show the CBC's true ideological bent, I don't know what does.

No wonder Harper been increasing funding to the CBC:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canadavotes/realitycheck/2008/10/cbc_funding_thank_you_mr_harpe.html

[Keepitsimple]

I think the growing right-wing bias of CBC is making many former viewers switch the channel.

If all this doesn't show the CBC's true ideological bent, I don't know what does.

No wonder Harper been increasing funding to the CBC:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canadavotes/realitycheck/2008/10/cbc_funding_thank_you_mr_harpe.html

I'm glad to hear your opinion on this. If a Left Winger sees the CBC as Conservative-biased, Canadians can be conforted that they at least are starting to inject some balance into their politics.