Conservative War On Science

[Saipan]

Any idea why would lefties defend CBC while righ wing see CBC's unfair reporting?

[GostHacked]

Any idea why would lefties defend CBC while righ wing see CBC's unfair reporting?

Because people like that are gullible?? Only idiots think there is a right and a left.

[bloodyminded]

Implying...??? Excellent use of innuendo leading to your following question.

Now you've really spun off into paranoid land...one in which basic English, including the denotation and even connotation of words and phrases, becomes irrelevant...since everything must be "implying"....[what, exactly?] and a form of leading innuendo.

I said that I "understand the sentiment," and you consider this an "excellent use of innuendo"?

[waldo]

Oh my - just how will Harper Conservatives spin the 6% unreported violent crime and 93% personal safety satisfaction figures... spin, in order to substantiate the $9 Billion new prison costs?

I thought you would be more scientific and less political but you are more political than scientific. Quoting the $9B figure spins it like any other politician.

Pliny... trust the google... save yourself additional embarrassment next time. Of course, that $9B figure originates from a Parliamentary Budget Office report that intended to quantify the implications of Bill C-25, the Conservatives "Truth in Sentencing Act". Of course, the PBO (Kevin Page) became involved as the Harper Conservatives have steadfastly refused to provide projected costs... Pliny... if you don't like the $9 Billion figure being bandied about by the media/Opposition, please, please... lobby your favoured Harper Conservatives to release projected costs - hey?

Still spin, Waldo. Really, save yourself some embarrassment.

From the PBO report:

The federal component of this expenditure was $2.2 billion, or 51%, whereas the provincial share was about $2.15 billion, or 49%. The total funding requirement for correctional departments in Canada is thus projected to rise to $9.5 billion by FY2015-16, a factor of 2.15 increase over the FY2009-10 expenditures of $4.4 billion.

$9B new funding costs?? The federal component is $2.2B. Part of that is of course inflation.

You see how political bias seeps into science. You do notice you have a political bias don't you? Or do you think of yourself as fair and balanced?

It seems your political interests supersede your scientific interests.

Pliny, yours was the oft repeated Conservative supporters talking point repeating an implication that the media/Opposition is inflating the costs of the Harper Conservatives, Bill C-25 - "Truth in Sentencing Act". I simply reacquainted you with the origination point for that $9.5 Billion dollar cost projection. As I said, the PBO (Kevin Page) became involved given the absolute refusal by the Harper Conservative government to release costing. I'm not sure why you would label the media/Opposition/others referencing the only available costing figure... as political bias.

The PBO target was the total costing associated to the Conservative Bill C-25 - "Truth in Sentencing Act"... as I'm aware, the media/Opposition reference is on total costing for Bill C-25. While you're acknowledging and accepting the PBO's $9.5 Billion cost projection, do you have a point in attempting to breakout that Conservative Bill C-25 - "Truth in Sentencing Act" total cost projection?

[bloodyminded]

Any idea why would lefties defend CBC while righ wing see CBC's unfair reporting?

Some evidence, Saipan. Hard evidence to underline your opinion (which you claim is based on evidence...or else on nothing).

Consider it a challenge; should be easy. ("Day to day," you said, after all...you can find it in yesterday's news!) Go.

Edited October 6, 2010 by bloodyminded

[Michael Hardner]

Only idiots think there is a right and a left.

That's pretty strong, but I do see a trend where people are starting to see right vs. left as a "fixed fight".

[Saipan]

Some evidence, Saipan.

You are it.

One of the evidences.

[bloodyminded]

You are it.

One of the evidences.

Flatly refusing to support your claims is not tremendously better than the usual method of ignoring the requests.

But at least you offer the spectacle of being honest about being disingenuous. That's a bit novel.

[Saipan]

But at least you offer the spectacle of being honest about being disingenuous.

I'm sure you believe it.

[Evening Star]

I don't even get what the 'Liberal (or liberal?) bias' of the CBC is supposed to be. Their coverage of e.g. the sponsorship scandal was extremely thorough and in-depth. The CBC was my main source of information on that issue, in fact, which turned me hard against the Martin Liberals in that election. Their coverage of the civil rights violations and miscommunications in the handling of G20 protests, which did much to sour me on McGuinty's Liberals, was also extremely thorough and damning. I just did searches on "Ignatieff" and "Harper" on the CBC website and I certainly don't see much to suggest that the coverage of Ignatieff is more favourable.

As for me being liberal/left but not Liberal, that's probably true but it just makes the allegation against the CBC even vaguer. I don't feel that much ideological kinship with the people who sent us into combat in Afghanistan, slashed federal funding for health and education, did little to oppose the occupation of East Timor, and completed the privatization of Petro-Canada. If the CBC is in fact their mouthpiece, then it's not really working as the mouthpiece for the views I stand for. What does it actually mean to say that the CBC has a liberal or left bias? If you were claiming that it had a bias against US foreign policy or against big business interests etc, that would at least be a comprehensible claim that could be evaluated.

The argument that the CBC will tend to favour the party who is more likely to continue funding the CBC is no more credible in and of itself than the argument that commercial media will tend to favour the long-term interests of corporations who own and fund them (and that consequently public broadcasters provide a useful balance). While M.Dancer has raised some valid criticisms of his arguments, Chomsky has at least provided extensively argued and thoroughly support examples of cases where commercial media framed issues in ways that worked in the favour of US foreign policy interests (and ultimately corporate interests), e.g. the relative lack of coverage of the genocide in East Timor compared to the coverage of the genocide in Cambodia.

[bloodyminded]

I don't even get what the 'Liberal (or liberal?) bias' of the CBC is supposed to be. Their coverage of e.g. the sponsorship scandal was extremely thorough and in-depth. The CBC was my main source of information on that issue, in fact, which turned me hard against the Martin Liberals in that election. Their coverage of the civil rights violations and miscommunications in the handling of G20 protests, which did much to sour me on McGuinty's Liberals, was also extremely thorough and damning. I just did searches on "Ignatieff" and "Harper" on the CBC website and I certainly don't see much to suggest that the coverage of Ignatieff is more favourable.

As for me being liberal/left but not Liberal, that's probably true but it just makes the allegation against the CBC even vaguer. I don't feel that much ideological kinship with the people who sent us into combat in Afghanistan, slashed federal funding for health and education, did little to oppose the occupation of East Timor, and completed the privatization of Petro-Canada. If the CBC is in fact their mouthpiece, then it's not really working as the mouthpiece for the views I stand for. What does it actually mean to say that the CBC has a liberal or left bias? If you were claiming that it had a bias against US foreign policy or against big business interests etc, that would at least be a comprehensible claim that could be evaluated.

The argument that the CBC will tend to favour the party who is more likely to continue funding the CBC is no more credible in and of itself than the argument that commercial media will tend to favour the long-term interests of corporations who own and fund them (and that consequently public broadcasters provide a useful balance). While M.Dancer has raised some valid criticisms of his arguments, Chomsky has at least provided extensively argued and thoroughly support examples of cases where commercial media framed issues in ways that worked in the favour of US foreign policy interests (and ultimately corporate interests), e.g. the relative lack of coverage of the genocide in East Timor compared to the coverage of the genocide in Cambodia.

Very well said.

[Saipan]

Very well said.

And all lefties agree.

Predictably.

[nicky10013]

And all lefties agree.

Predictably.

We still haven't seen any evidence. Rather than sit here and decrying "lefties" why don't you go on and find evidence of how the CBC is a leftist organization?

[bloodyminded]

We still haven't seen any evidence. Rather than sit here and decrying "lefties" why don't you go on and find evidence of how the CBC is a leftist organization?

That ship has clearly sailed. He's unwilling because he's unable.

This gigantic disconnect--between claims of "leftist" media bias and the inability to provide some expansive evidence--is the result of people holding onto cherished ideological beliefs ("left-wing media") simply because they have been told it's the case, and because it aligns nicely with their pre-existing worldview.

The fact is that, if they were correct about this bias, somebody would have produced something to try to prove it. Not a few unrelate examples (by which you can "prove," literally, almost anything), but an expansive treatise, using lots of evidence, and constituting a cohesive whole.

Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman did it, after all, with Manufacturing Consent. And whether one agrees with their study or not (personally, I think it's quite remarkable), no one can deny that it is a cohesive whole, a very strong argument, and so full of examples and evidence that it simply cannot be dismissed out of hand.

No one claiming "leftist bias" has done anything similar.

Why not? If it's such a big deal, and if there's so much evidence that their thesis is obvious and self-evident...why haven't they tried to prove it?

Until they actually enter this debate in an active sense (rather than plagiarizing proof-less claims made by right-wing ideologues) they are declaring themselves the losers in the debate.

[Pliny]

Pliny, yours was the oft repeated Conservative supporters talking point repeating an implication that the media/Opposition is inflating the costs of the Harper Conservatives, Bill C-25 - "Truth in Sentencing Act". I simply reacquainted you with the origination point for that $9.5 Billion dollar cost projection. As I said, the PBO (Kevin Page) became involved given the absolute refusal by the Harper Conservative government to release costing. I'm not sure why you would label the media/Opposition/others referencing the only available costing figure... as political bias.

The PBO target was the total costing associated to the Conservative Bill C-25 - "Truth in Sentencing Act"... as I'm aware, the media/Opposition reference is on total costing for Bill C-25. While you're acknowledging and accepting the PBO's $9.5 Billion cost projection, do you have a point in attempting to breakout that Conservative Bill C-25 - "Truth in Sentencing Act" total cost projection?

It's in my last post for all to see. Don't embarrass yourself further.

[Pliny]

We still haven't seen any evidence.

Nor will you ever.

Rather than sit here and decrying "lefties" why don't you go on and find evidence of how the CBC is a leftist organization?

Would you say Fox news is right wing? Whatever you are using as a comparison is probably left-wing?

I suppose the CBC is right wing in comparison to yourself.

[gutb]

How any rational adult with the power of free thought can believe the CBC is not a statist-leftist organization which clearly delivers spin from that perspective is completely beyond me. In terms of straight informational stories, the CBC is a little shallow but general unbiased in terms of a slant unless on a subject that directly concerns them or the image of the Liberals and Conservatives. The most glaringly obvious examples are from their documentaries and editorials. Such as this documentary right on the front page:

INDIA REBORN

"Chart the kaleidoscopic rise of one of the world's emerging superpowers."

Why is a laudatory "documentary" concerning India of interest to Canadians?

INFLUENZA

"Battling The Last Great Virus"

Mentions Canada getting bird flu, but not how few other countries managed that honor.

[Evening Star]

Adding to bloodyminded's post, Herman and Chomsky don't simply make nebulous claims that the media has a 'right-wing' or 'conservative' bias. They specifically argue that it is slanted in favour of the interests of multinational corporations and to some extent the US political/military establishment, especially in terms of its coverage of US foreign policy. In fact, they point out that it can work just as well in favour of Democrats as well as Republicans, insofar as both parties have strong corporate ties.

Would you say Fox news is right wing? Whatever you are using as a comparison is probably left-wing?

But, as dre noted, people point out this slant in Fox's reporting and commentary because there is not even a pretence of impartiality. The network seems to actively engage in political activity. A number of prominent Republicans are openly on the Fox payroll. When you cannot say the same about the CBC, it becomes necessary to actually demonstrate that there is a clear political bias in its coverage or its activities. It is not enough to say "It is clearly not as right-wing as Fox. Therefore, it is left-wing." (Unless this is what you meant and you were being ironic. I wasn't sure.) One could just as easily ask "Would you say the New Internationalist or Z Magazine are left-wing? Whatever you use as a comparison is probably right-wing?"

I don't see at all how gutb's examples demonstrate a leftist spin. India is an emerging superpower, the second-most populous country in the world, the most populous democracy, a Commonwealth country, and the ancestral home of a large number of Canadians. Why should a documentary about India not be of interest to Canadians? And how does it reflect a leftist agenda? If anything, India's rise is freqently touted as a success story of free-market principles and corporate opportunity.

I'm not sure where you're coming from with the bird flu thing at all, sorry.

[Saipan]

It's pretty simple really as in following example: (one of many)

CBC gave air time to Bill Clinton and Michael Moore, just before our FEDERAL ELECTIONS - which I doubt is really legal, to spew their liberal slant and "advice" as to who should we vote for (definitely not CPC) Never mind air time for racists like Faraqhan.

If CBC was really balanced, we would see G.W. Bush and perhaps NRA President to tell us who to vote for (definitely not Liberals) - which CBC wouldn't even dream of.

I.e. CBC is a left wing mouthpiece - beyond any doubt.

[Evening Star]

If that was the 2008 election, I'm guessing it might have been because there was not so much demand at the time for Bush's opinion anywhere, including Canada. Do you think an endorsement from Bush would have helped the CPC?? (Actually, if the CBC really did have a Liberal bias, they might have requested that Bush appear and endorse Harper!) And I certainly don't think Clinton's policies or stances were terribly left-wing, or even especially Liberal, by Canadian standards. Did Moore have a film out at the time? That might explain why there was an interest in his view. When P. J. O'Rourke had a book out in 2007, he was a guest on The Hour and was treated very respectfully by George Strombolopoulos.

The CBC did have e.g. Claire Hoy co-hosting a Newsworld programme for years.

[Evening Star]

Using Google, I can't even find a link that shows Clinton's endorsement of anyone in a Canadian election, btw.

[Pliny]

If that was the 2008 election, I'm guessing it might have been because there was not so much demand at the time for Bush's opinion anywhere, including Canada. Do you think an endorsement from Bush would have helped the CPC?? (Actually, if the CBC really did have a Liberal bias, they might have requested that Bush appear and endorse Harper!) And I certainly don't think Clinton's policies or stances were terribly left-wing, or even especially Liberal, by Canadian standards. Did Moore have a film out at the time? That might explain why there was an interest in his view. When P. J. O'Rourke had a book out in 2007, he was a guest on The Hour and was treated very respectfully by George Strombolopoulos.

The CBC did have e.g. Claire Hoy co-hosting a Newsworld programme for years.

You will never see any evidence either.

...and everything in comparison to Chomsky is right wing.

Edited October 8, 2010 by Pliny

[gutb]

The CBC cannot be compared to any American news network for one reason: Political motives. In the US, there is a great deal of effort and money spent on managing the opinions of voters, while in Canada there is much less of that simply because the American system has more fear of the general populace than the Canadian system does. American news media tries to sell viewpoints and attitudes to people. In Canada, media elite simply promote their own sub-cultural and institutional agendas as opposed to receiving marching orders from a political apparatus; there may be individual examples of government figures influencing the message, but this would be an informal arrangement.

While US news media tries to package a message, the CBC simply promotes topics of interest to the CBC. The CBC supports the Liberals as their main benefactors, and they spend a tremendous amount of resources on foreign topics -- the later is not connected with the former, it's simply a manifestation of the narrow interests of a "Canadian" staff that is increasingly from non-Canadian ethnic groups. It's rather telling that the young Canadians working their way into the CBC would rather produce foreign content than Canadian content. I remember a time many years ago in which the CBC was essentially a pro-Canada propaganda source, with a lot of shows and stories about Canada. Now, when we look at CBC documentaries this is what we see:

DIET FOR A HUNGRY PLANET

"Hosted by Anna Maria Tremonti, the series highlights some of The Current's coverage of food issues affecting Canadians and people around the world. From the safety of our food supply to the soaring costs of staples like wheat, corn and rice to what we grow"

Nice of them to add Canadians to that list to give it some kind of legitimacy for a tax-funded Canadian media outlet. Does anyone care enough about what this woman has to say to give her a separate show on this topic?

DISPATCHES

"Dispatches host Rick MacInnes-Rae knows what it is like to be an eyewitness to history. Go beyond the headlines with correspondents on assignment all over the globe."

So some guy sampling the hospitality industry all over the world reporting on foreign news? I spent a lot of time outside of the country over the last few years for work, can I get a show on the CBC talking about the stuff I saw? Would that be of interest to Canadians?

DOC ZONE

"CBC's flagship documentary series presents a sweeping panoramic view of what matters most to Canadians."

Some Canadian content, let's take a look..."The Twins Who Share a Brian", complete with image. This garbage is "what matters most to Canadians" ? Okay, just bad luck, what else in the DOC ZONE could be "what matters most to Canadians"? Let's list all of the upcoming episode topics in order from top to bottom as they appear on the page as of the time of this post:

1. INDIA REBORN

"An array of charismatic characters introduces you to the world's newest superpower. Experience the rich tapestry of India's ancient myths played out against the modern might of this sprawling, diverse democracy."

So India is now a superpower, definitely an alert worthy of Canada's full undivided attention and a topic of natural interest to Canadians. To make sure the full import of "superpower" is put across, the image is that of an Indian industrial worker laboring at what appears to be some sort of highly modern steelworks with sparks spraying dramatically. The fact that the world's latest superpower is buying far fewer cars this year than Canada will be explained I'm sure.

2. AFRICA ON THE MOVE

"A dazzling four-part documentary series that captures the vibrancy of Africa's diverse people and rich cultures. We'll meet men and women, many of them young, who embody the amazing changes occurring on a daily basis across 53 countries."

Wow what a treat for Canadians! Having actually been to Africa myself just this year and finding at least the little piece I was exposed to an utter hole of poverty and corruption, I would definitely like to see the daily changes taking place, and I'm sure my fellow Canadians share my keen interest in this topic which "matters most" to us.

3. SURVIVING THE FUTURE

"Today's visions of the future both utopian and apocalyptic. From scientists striving to create the world of tomorrow to corporations thriving on the status quo, and the citizens and consumers in between, we ask a simple and profound question: Can our high-tech civilization survive the 21st century?"

A simpleton editorial is certainly a topic Canadians care about -- definitely some of us anyway! From the blurb it sounds like Canadians will finally get an unbiased, fair, level-headed and scientific view of this question.

Is there any legitimate reason for the CBC to exist in its current form? Or at all?

[Slim]

The CBC supports the Liberals as their main benefactors, and they spend a tremendous amount of resources on foreign topics -- the later is not connected with the former, it's simply a manifestation of the narrow interests of a "Canadian" staff that is increasingly from non-Canadian ethnic groups.

What the hell? Where did this come from?

You're saying this because CBC is reporting news from outside of Canada? I'm a little flabberghasted by this statement.

In Canada, media elite simply promote their own sub-cultural and institutional agendas as opposed to receiving marching orders from a political apparatus

... what? Could you source this claim?

[Saipan]

the American system has more fear of the general populace than the Canadian system does.

"Both oligarch and tyrant mistrust the people,

and therefore deprive them of their arms."

- - - - Aristotle, "Politics"

That's why Americans have such a strict gun control and unlike Canada some firearms are already being confiscated there

"Hosted by Anna Maria Tremonti, the series highlights some of The Current's coverage of food issues affecting Canadians and people around the world. From the safety of our food supply to the soaring costs of staples like wheat, corn and rice to what we grow"

She just forgot to tell us it's because of biofools, promoting use of corn and wheat to power cars, while those who can't even afford a car go hungry. Never showed us the demonstration in Mexico because of corn price and Italy against soaring price of pasta.

We can't blame the market. Corn and wheat is sold in Commodity Market at world prices to highest bidder.