Time to defund the CBC

[Bob]

http://www.torontosun.com/2011/09/13/taxpayers-foot-bill-for-cbcs-tiff-party

Competitive nature my foot. Why can't taxpayers find out how much this glitzy affair cost us?

Party on, CBC. Obviously, there's nobody standing in your way.

It says a lot about Canadian political culture that criticism of the CBC and calls for its privatization seem to have only arisen in recent months with the arrival of Sun News. We're so far to the left in this country it's embarrassing, when state-media is no aggressively defended by so many as some sort of tempering force against the evil privately-owned corporate media (most of which is left-wing, anyways!).

[bloodyminded]

It says a lot about Canadian political culture that criticism of the CBC and calls for its privatization seem to have only arisen in recent months with the arrival of Sun News. We're so far to the left in this country it's embarrassing, when state-media is no aggressively defended by so many as some sort of tempering force against the evil privately-owned corporate media (most of which is left-wing, anyways!).

I would love some expansive evidence of this massive left-wing media apparatus.

I have asked many times, and so far only Pliny has even attempted to debate the matter.

(He was wrong, of course, but I appreciated his interesting and intelligent attempt.)

So far, the Chomsky/Herman "Propaganda Model" remains light-years ahead of all opinions posited by the "leftist media" theorists.

Which begs the question: why, after 22 years, has no one--no one!--managed to summon a worthy response to Manufacturing Consent? (Trivial sniping at marginal matters aside.) What's the hold-up?

Edited September 15, 2011 by bloodyminded

[segnosaur]

It says a lot about Canadian political culture that criticism of the CBC and calls for its privatization seem to have only arisen in recent months with the arrival of Sun News.

Actually there were many people/groups calling for the CBC to be privatized/funding cut, long before the Sun news network came long.

For example: (from 2005) The National Citizens Coalition says it’s time to privatize the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.

http://www.friends.ca/news-item/4704

[Black Dog]

It says a lot about Canadian political culture that criticism of the CBC and calls for its privatization seem to have only arisen in recent months with the arrival of Sun News. We're so far to the left in this country it's embarrassing, when state-media is no aggressively defended by so many as some sort of tempering force against the evil privately-owned corporate media (most of which is left-wing, anyways!).

What do you mean "we" in "this country"? Since when are you one of us?

[segnosaur]

Re: CBC providing "education"...

We already have something that helps educate Canadians about Canada... its called school. Perhaps you might have heard of it.

(And here's a little hint... fictional shows appearing on networks are not "educating viewers about Canada (or any country really)". They are entertainment.

Yes the "Beach combers" and "Ann of Green Gables" are fictional but are 100% Canadian.Do you think CBS would run a TV show about life in general centred around PEI?

Oh another good one is "Littlest mosque on the prarie".

Umm... first of all, your earlier statement was "I forgot how much American programing helps to educate its viewers about Canada". You were the one that brought up the issue of "education", not "what percentage of the show is produced here".

And question... just how much "education" do you think people are absorbing when the CBC broadcasts shows that virtually nobody is watching? Yeah, you have pointed to shows like Ann of Green Gables (which had a certain amount of popularity), but such "hits" are few and far between.

You see, what you have done is engaged in a false appeal from authority. McCulloch and McDonald may be fine comedic talents, but there is no reason to believe they would have any more knowledge about history, etc. than others.

Do not tell me whom I may decide has merit or not!

You have the right to believe whomever you want. Heck, if you want to claim your opinions come from an all-knowing invisible pink unicorn living in your sock drawer you have that right.

However, I have a right to point out that attempting to "name drop" by brining up people like MCCulloch et. al is a false argument from authority and you can and should be called out on it. The fact that they've been engaged in television production does not mean that they necessarily have a greater understanding of economics, ethics, statistics or demographics, all of which are more relevant to whether the CBC should be funded than "OMG! They appeared on the TV!"

Does anyone here really believe the Harper government will actually completely stop funding the CBC?

Probably not, but why is that relevant?

Believe it or not, some people may support a political party even if they do not agree 100% with every policy decision they make.

[segnosaur]

Here's a poll (conducted by Abacus Data) that some people might consider relevant:

- Roughly 80% of Canadians didn't know how much money the CBC was receiving. More than half (60%) thought it was receiving $150 million or less. (So, anyone pointing to polls showing how many Canadians want the CBC kept should keep that in mind.)

- 60% of all Canadians thing the CBC receives "too much" money from the government.

- As expected there is more support for cutting CBC funding among conservatives than Liberals. Surprisingly though, 53% of all NDP supporters also want funding cut (a higher percentage than the Liberals.)

There was one thing I couldn't figure out with the poll... whether the question of whether the CBC receives "too much" was asked when the people didn't know how much it received, or did the pollster point out the correct funding amount before asking this question.

Note that this poll was an "on line" poll, but respondents were selected at random from a pool of available users, and the results were weighted to match the census data for each region.

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Politics/2011/09/07/cbcfunding.pdf

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Politics/2011/09/07/18649016.html

[guyser]

I would love some expansive evidence of this massive left-wing media apparatus.

I have asked many times, and so far only Pliny has even attempted to debate the matter.

Want a couple of gorgeous 24 yr old twins for a debauched weekend along with a jet and yacht? Likely to get these before evidence pops up. But then again, we shall hear how left wing media is time and time again.

[bloodyminded]

Want a couple of gorgeous 24 yr old twins for a debauched weekend along with a jet and yacht? Likely to get these before evidence pops up. But then again, we shall hear how left wing media is time and time again.

You're right, except I can foresee a few minor bits of decontextualized and selective "evidence," produced by these fine scholars who believe that'll make their case.

What I'm looking for is something expansive and coherent. Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman made an excellent case: a coherent and testable hypothesis, and then reams of evidence.

But you're right, it'll be a long wait. As in forever.

[Bob]

Actually there were many people/groups calling for the CBC to be privatized/funding cut, long before the Sun news network came long.

For example: (from 2005) The National Citizens Coalition says it’s time to privatize the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.

http://www.friends.ca/news-item/4704

Allow me to clarify - we never saw such positions aired on mainstream television news in Canada (until recently, with the arrival of Sun News). I've been opposed to the idea of state-media as long as I've been politically tuned in. But that opinion never received any serious airtime, is my point.

Edited September 15, 2011 by Bob

[Bob]

I would love some expansive evidence of this massive left-wing media apparatus.

I have asked many times, and so far only Pliny has even attempted to debate the matter.

(He was wrong, of course, but I appreciated his interesting and intelligent attempt.)

So far, the Chomsky/Herman "Propaganda Model" remains light-years ahead of all opinions posited by the "leftist media" theorists.

Which begs the question: why, after 22 years, has no one--no one!--managed to summon a worthy response to Manufacturing Consent? (Trivial sniping at marginal matters aside.) What's the hold-up?

I can find left-wing bias in virtually any CBC article or opinion-piece that is at least a few hundred words, as an example. Whether it be biased language, omission of relevant context, or otherwise, it's almost always there. I can do the same for most media outlets, including CNN, BBC, or other Canadian outlets. I see it everywhere I look, it's not some complicated phenomenon that's needs to be described with complex graphs and flowcharts.

[segnosaur]

I would love some expansive evidence of this massive left-wing media apparatus.

I have asked many times, and so far only Pliny has even attempted to debate the matter.

So far, the Chomsky/Herman "Propaganda Model" remains light-years ahead of all opinions posited by the "leftist media" theorists.

Which begs the question: why, after 22 years, has no one--no one!--managed to summon a worthy response to Manufacturing Consent? (Trivial sniping at marginal matters aside.) What's the hold-up?

First of all, keep in mind that for some of us whether CBC is 'biased' is not a major issue in this discussion... even if it were somehow totally unbiased, I would still be in favor of eliminating it for the same reason I explained before... it does not provide a function that other outlets are not able to provide. (I did in fact point out several incidences of bias. However, I also acknowledged that individual cases do not necessarily constitute an overall bias.)

Secondly, I can identify several problems with Chomsky's theories.

- Much of his work is likewise based on citing particular instances. (For example, in the Manufacturing Consent movie he discusses the New York Times discussion of East Timor.) However, that's cherry picking.... Him picking on the NYT for this one incidence is no different than someone pointing to a biased CBC story and saying "See?" In both cases an individual case does not indicate a systemic problem.

- Much of his theory is summed up by "profit motives=bias". However, it would be a mistake to assume the same bias will cause the entire media world to engage in the same bias. Companies will do what's best for themselves and their profits; in some cases it will mean a particular outlet will project a "right wing" bias. However, a media organization may also project a "left wing" bias if it feels it can profit from it. I have no doubt that individual media outlets can and do have biases. But as a whole the media is neutral. In addition, there can be a financial advantage to "getting things right"... a news source that is biased to the point that it is "wrong" risks seeing their revenues drop as people go to more accurate sources.

- He appears to be ignoring other factors that might serve as a counterbalance (even if some media owners wanted a 'shift to the right'.) Newspapers/TV stations/etc. have to be staffed, and I doubt it can be claimed that every available graduate from journalism schools is willing to toe the "right wing" line.

Lastly, not sure why its actually relevant. Are you claiming we need the CBC because its the only "unbiased source up against biased media"? In that case, you seem to be applying a "double standard"... you are suggesting that private media outlets are the only ones that are "in it for themselves", while ignoring any sort of self-beneficial actions a government-run organization may have. (After all, it would be to their benefit to push stories that justify their existence. Why would they be immune from 'greed'?)

[Bob]

I agree with you, segnosaur, on the issue of the CBC's bias not being the most important problem with the CBC. It is the public funding that goes to the CBC. The CBC can be as biased as it wants to be, but it should stand on its own two feet. As usual, we're not seeing any courage from the CPC regarding defunding the CBC. It's as if we don't have any real conservatism in this country.

[Rick]

What do you mean "we" in "this country"? Since when are you one of us?

Good question. I know the whine from Israel comes through loud and clear and politicians tend to bend over at the Jewish command but since when did Israel become a part of Canada.

[Bob]

What do you mean "we" in "this country"? Since when are you one of us?

I am as Canadian as anyone else on this board.

[Black Dog]

I am as Canadian as anyone else on this board.

Between the moniker, the Israeli flag on your profile, the single-minded obsession with Israel (including first-person identification with citizens of the state), I assumed you were Israeli and not some sad wannabe. My mistake.

I can find left-wing bias in virtually any CBC article or opinion-piece that is at least a few hundred words, as an example. Whether it be biased language, omission of relevant context, or otherwise, it's almost always there. I can do the same for most media outlets, including CNN, BBC, or other Canadian outlets. I see it everywhere I look, it's not some complicated phenomenon that's needs to be described with complex graphs and flowcharts.

Funny how people who set out to find something, anything, invariably do.

Edited September 15, 2011 by Black Dog

[Rick]

Between the moniker, the Israeli flag on your profile, the single-minded obsession with Israel (including first-person identification with citizens of the state), I assumed you were Israeli and not some sad wannabe. My mistake.

You're not the only one who noticed that.

If that's the definition of 'Canadian'.... Damn Trudeau for bringing us that kind of multiculturalism....

Makes you wonder what country he'd fight for if Canada and Israel were ever to go to war with one another...

[wyly]

I can find left-wing bias in virtually any CBC article or opinion-piece that is at least a few hundred words, as an example. Whether it be biased language, omission of relevant context, or otherwise, it's almost always there. I can do the same for most media outlets, including CNN, BBC, or other Canadian outlets. I see it everywhere I look, it's not some complicated phenomenon that's needs to be described with complex graphs and flowcharts.

from your position in the political spectrum everyone even Hitler is left wing fanatic...you're on the extreme edge of nutbar land...

[Bob]

from your position in the political spectrum everyone even Hitler is left wing fanatic...you're on the extreme edge of nutbar land...

Indeed, Hitler was a left-wing fanatic.

[Boges]

from your position in the political spectrum everyone even Hitler is left wing fanatic...you're on the extreme edge of nutbar land...

The perceived bias of any news outlet is subjective on one's opinions.

I bet there are people who think the Toronto Star is a fair and biased newspaper. And it's constant attacks on Mayor Rob Ford are just fair comment.

I actually think the CBC goes to great length to appear to be unbiased and by doing so they display a sort of political correctness that many on the right, myself included, find somewhat objectionable.

A good example of this is their unwillingness to publish the names and pictures of the "war criminals" that were meant to be deported by the Canadian government.

Edited September 15, 2011 by Boges

[CitizenX]

Indeed, Hitler was a left-wing fanatic.

Wrong Bob..So very wrong. Just because you wish it so doesn't make it so.

[Bob]

Wrong Bob..So very wrong. Just because you wish it so doesn't make it so.

Consolidation of government control over the means of production - check.

Consolidation of government control over education, media, and all other forms of mass communication - check.

Elimination of political freedoms and persecution of dissent - check.

Usage of socialist rhetoric for the party platform - check.

National SOCIALIST Party - check.

Left. Left. Left.

[Black Dog]

Consolidation of government control over the means of production - check.

Consolidation of government control over education, media, and all other forms of mass communication - check.

Elimination of political freedoms and persecution of dissent - check.

Usage of socialist rhetoric for the party platform - check.

National SOCIALIST Party - check.

Left. Left. Left.

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Those are primarily characteristics of authoritarian regimes, not specifically leftist/socialist (though I expect the differences would escape a rabid ideologue like you). Even Jonah Goldberg e would be embarrassed by your level of intellectual rigor on this.

Edited September 15, 2011 by Black Dog

[bloodyminded]

First of all, keep in mind that for some of us whether CBC is 'biased' is not a major issue in this discussion... even if it were somehow totally unbiased, I would still be in favor of eliminating it for the same reason I explained before... it does not provide a function that other outlets are not able to provide. (I did in fact point out several incidences of bias. However, I also acknowledged that individual cases do not necessarily constitute an overall bias.)

Yes, I understand, and arguments against a public broadcaster are certainly different from the arguments agaisnt which I'm objecting.

Secondly, I can identify several problems with Chomsky's theories.

- Much of his work is likewise based on citing particular instances. (For example, in the Manufacturing Consent movie he discusses the New York Times discussion of East Timor.) However, that's cherry picking.... Him picking on the NYT for this one incidence is no different than someone pointing to a biased CBC story and saying "See?" In both cases an individual case does not indicate a systemic problem.

No, there's some crucial differences:

(And to get a simple matter out of the way, there is no whiff of a claim of "conservative bias" in the East Timor example, nor in most of the ones the authors use. (Not that you're making the claim; but I wished to clarify this point for those who believe MC is about "right-wing bias.")

The East Timor example isn't cherry-picking, for several reasons:

First, it's not about the NYTimes, but all the major media organs. They concentrated on the Times because it is (or at least was) the most influential mainstream newspaper in the world, the "paper of record," from which so many other news sources have drawn their example and acted as secondary agents of disseminating the news.

Second, the case of East Timor was not, in the book (nor quite in the inferior movie), solely about itself; they used it as a test case for a couple of matters, and it provided the perfect storm, a great confluence; simultaneous to the initial horrors unfolding in E. Timor were the horrors unfolding in Cambodia. And we can see, from the Times and elsewhere, that one was a horror-chamber (Cambodia and its enemy communists) and one was not even a story (E. Timor and its state terror perpetrated by our allies and with our material aid). So the reporting on the two was completely different, although the criminality and monstrosity were similar. Different agents of destruction is the only substantive difference.

To this day, people try to tell me that our "looking away" is not parallel to intentional slaughter...it's as if there's no eyewitnesses, and no declassified record which informs us exactly of what's going on. It's astonishing, frankly.

Further, the case of East Timor matters in a way that "leftist bias at the CBC" does not, because of the scale. (And CBC too was part of this bias, by the way.) We're talking one of the worst mass slaughters by percentage of population in the last half of the 20th century--and there's lots of competition. We can be horrified at Milosevic, without recognizing that the crimes with which we were intimately involved totally and utterly eclipse anything by the Serbian killers. (Since the East Timor slaughters went on so long, Chomsky and Herman had the opportunity to compare those two situations as well...an even more shameless media production, since at least Pol Pot's murders were on a similar scale to Suharto's, while Sebia's most certainly were not).

This is difficult for Westerners to wrap their brains around, thanks to the profundity of the doctrinal tendencies and the screaming depths of the propaganda, but consider it; how could we call that "cherry-picking," and compare it to some lame and dubious examples of CBC "leftist bias," when we're talking about state terrorism on a scale that vastly overshadows Hamas or any other rank amateurs; hundreds of thousands dead, innumerable others "disappeared", tortured, all the usual, awful stuff...and all done with the full, including material, support of some Western democracies, the US and UK leading the pack of miserable criminals by some measure?

No one "looked away," except the news media. This was not "allowing it to happen"; it happened precisely because of Western support for illegal invasions, state terror, and mass murder. It really happened. It's mind-boggling, but there it is.

In short, the news media failing to report (or reporting totally incorrectly) a crime of this magnitude cannot be passed off as "cherry-picking."

- Much of his theory is summed up by "profit motives=bias". However, it would be a mistake to assume the same bias will cause the entire media world to engage in the same bias. Companies will do what's best for themselves and their profits; in some cases it will mean a particular outlet will project a "right wing" bias. However, a media organization may also project a "left wing" bias if it feels it can profit from it.

Yes, and this has been noted. Pointed out are instances of "liberal bias," but almost always within narrow parameters. At any rate, "ownership" is only one of the "five filters" they posit, along with advertising, flak, sourcing (ie overwelmingly business and government spokespeaople, specifically trained in the art of Public Relations), and, yes, ideology. The original final point was "anti-communism," but they've since revised that to "official enemies," and even conceding that the orginial may have been too narrow in scope. Nevertheless, there is a confluence of influences (quite interrelated in most cases), not merely profit-motive.

I have no doubt that individual media outlets can and do have biases. But as a whole the media is neutral.

They are indeed, overall, "neutral," but again, only within relatively narrow parameters. In domestic politics, the field is much larger and more open to debate; in foreign subjects, particularly when we're involved in military action, the debate narrows immediately, with precious little theorizing about motives...a near-sacred cow. Canada is arguably worse than the US in this sphere. So we can argue about the wisdom of this or that war, and even the methods....but the essential, bottom-line morality of it is only even mentioned by "fringe" elements, "the wild men in the wings." This is true of media regardless of public opinion, in some part because professional journalists are part of the political class, hobnobbing and friendly...and crucially, dependent on good government graces for Sourcing.

In addition, there can be a financial advantage to "getting things right"... a news source that is biased to the point that it is "wrong" risks seeing their revenues drop as people go to more accurate sources.

This is not so clear. Did the major nerws organs, including the CBC, lose revenue for their piss-poor "reporting" on East Timor? For providing us with a propaganda video during the fall of Saddam's statue? (A few dozen Iraqis trucked in by the military, and then filmed to make it look like a large, spontaneous crowd)?

Hell, The Times, in a moment of actual journalistic lucidity, published an extensive, multi-part report on the Pentagon's propaganda offensive during the run-up to the Iraq War: the "independent analysts" present on every major network (ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, and FOX) were actually "message force multipliers" in the words of the Pentagon, briefed for talking points by high officials before vomiting these words back on the tv news, under the guise of "independent analysts."

To my knowledge, the networks lost no revenue over this.

But to be fair, they didn't report on the Times piece at all, so.....

-

He appears to be ignoring other factors that might serve as a counterbalance (even if some media owners wanted a 'shift to the right'.) Newspapers/TV stations/etc. have to be staffed, and I doubt it can be claimed that every available graduate from journalism schools is willing to toe the "right wing" line.

His argument isn't of right-wing bias. Most simply put, it is bias towards Power. Here, that involves the State (particularly the War State) and Big Business. In the Soviet Union, it would be the State, and whatever agencies of elements most favoured by Central authorities. But propaganda is a different animal in the two states: ours is much more sophisticated, full of many more half-truths. Which makes sense, sinc epropaganda as we know it is primarily a US/UK invention, beginning in earnest around WW1.

Lastly, not sure why its actually relevant. Are you claiming we need the CBC because its the only "unbiased source up against biased media"?

I'm not claiming anything; I'm arguing agaisnt the notion of some rampant "leftist bias," a hypothesis containing no institutional analysis whatsoever.

Edited September 15, 2011 by bloodyminded

[cybercoma]

I don't think it's all that extreme to be opposed to the fact that the CBC gets a $1.1 billion head start on the private broadcasters it competes with.

What also galls a lot of people, and it's been mentioned several times in this thread, is that if the CBC is a "Crown Corporation" yet refuses to release it's numbers to the public.

What's a fair value for funding a public broadcaster? You can debate the overall cost of having a public broadcaster and whether we're getting value for that money, but I don't think it's productive to quibble over every little detail of their operations. I think it's important for them to be able to quickly and efficiently make whatever decisions they need to make without it turning into a bureaucratized affair tangled in red-tape and political wrangling.

[Bob]

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Those are primarily characteristics of authoritarian regimes, not specifically leftist/socialist (though I expect the differences would escape a rabid ideologue like you). Even Jonah Goldberg e would be embarrassed by your level of intellectual rigor on this.

The point is that reduction of freedom and increasingly centralized control over the economy and society are primarily changes advocated by the left. It's a simple point, really where the left thinks that any perceived problem can be corrected via more and more governmental control (often ignoring the realities of ills EXACERBATED by governmental controls).