CBC leads 'get the facts' attack on Quebecor

[Shwa]

In a foreword to David Suzuki's book "An Elder's Vision For Our Sustainable Future", Atwood likens him to a prophet.

"It seems that David Suzuki has always been with us. He's lived in the tradition of the great prophets- those whose messages go unheeded because they tell us things we find uncomfortable. Time after time he's gone up the sacred mountain, listened to the voice, understood that it is what it is, and brought the hard but true words back down, only to find us cavorting around shiny gods of our own devising.

---

It's a wonder he never gave up on us. But he didn't: after each potato flung his way, he trudged up the mountain again, rearranged the words to make them more understandable, and gave us another try."

I've often thought that Suzuki hears voices, but Atwood's description is political correctness run amok.

Very interesting. How does Atwood's description arrive at "political correctness." Is there something she is thinking that she isn't saying?

[Evening Star]

I wondered that too, ha.

[capricorn]

Very interesting. How does Atwood's description arrive at "political correctness."

OK Shwa. Put it down as a brain fart on my part.

[capricorn]

I would appear CBC's little melt on their website didn't reveal some important information.

http://www.torontosun.com/2011/10/21/quebecor-hits-cbc-with-lawsuit-notice

If that's true, the CBC is guilty of committing libel against Quebecor, no question.

The CBC's link to "Get the facts" won't load. It's found at the very bottom of the CBC's main page under the heading "Corporate". All the other links load up. A glitch? Or is the CBC working to amend the contents of "Get the facts"?

http://www.cbc.ca/

Edited October 23, 2011 by capricorn

[fellowtraveller]

The CBC is defensive and on the run.

It is a start.

More pertinently, French Canada cares about Radio-Canada.

Great, that will make it easy then for our brothers and sisters in French Canada to dig deep in their own pockets for once and support that which they love- directly and generously.

[Bryan]

CBC using half-truths to paint a one-sided picture? Why is anyone surprised?

[mentalfloss]

CBC made the claim that Quebecor receives taxpayer funds. It accomplished that claim in its latest report (if you want to call it that). This is not libel, unless you received your law degree at DeVry.

Also, it had no obligation to mention Quebecor's contributions because that is irrelevent to the claim that Quebecor received taxpayer funds.

Edited October 24, 2011 by mentalfloss

[Boges]

CBC made the claim that Quebecor receives taxpayer funds. It accomplished that claim in its latest report (if you want to call it that). This is not libel, unless you received your law degree at DeVry.

Also, it had no obligation to mention Quebecor's contributions because that is irrelevent to the claim that Quebecor received taxpayer funds.

Especially when considering CBC got money from that same fund, above and beyond their $1.1 billion handout.

You really think their case is equally as effective if they disclosed that Quebecor contributes about as much as they receive from the government?

[capricorn]

CBC made the claim that Quebecor receives taxpayer funds.

More specifically the claim is "direct and indirect" taxpayer money.

I searched Canadian Media Fund/Canada Media Fund for the source of its funding. Nowhere could I find how much money the taxpayer is contributing to that fund.

Another thing. The fund allows funding through investments or loans. If Quebecor was extended a loan under the funding program, should that be categorized as a taxpayer subsidy? I could not find any relevant information.

Also, it had no obligation to mention Quebecor's contributions because that is irrelevent to the claim that Quebecor received taxpayer funds.

Isn't that's like accusing someone of taking $50.00 from petty cash but failing to mention the person remitted $55.00 back into it?

---

What I'd like to know is why the CBC receives funding from the Canada Media Fund when it already receives $1.1B annually in public funding.

[Boges]

What I'd like to know is why the CBC receives funding from the Canada Media Fund when it already receives $1.1B annually in public funding.

Cuz they deserve it DAMNIT!!!

[August1991]

Lol. Well, my mind is simultaneously blown by all of these ideas:

i) Margaret Atwood has some kind of powerful, broad-based influence over the hearts and minds of modern English Canadians, presumably because of English Canada's profound and widespread love for contemporary poetry and literary novels.

ii) She uses this influence to incite the unruly English Canadian mob to commit radical acts that can be sensibly compared to book burnings.

iii) Margaret Atwood is politically correct.

Well, Atwood is a maven of political correctness. She's the modern day equivalent of the WCTU because she claims a higher moral plane. She doesn't have "broad-based influence" but she can drum up enough support to motivate a modern day, left wing English Canadian (Toronto, Ontario) nationalist mob.

You can bet that if Harper takes on the CBC, even asking for a paltry 10% cut in its budget, Atwood and her ilk will start the Internet drums beating.

Edited October 24, 2011 by August1991

[Wild Bill]

Well, Atwood is a maven of political correctness. She's the modern day equivalent of the WCTU because she claims a higher moral plane. She doesn't have "broad-based influence" but she can drum up enough support to motivate a modern day, left wing English Canadian (Toronto, Ontario) nationalist mob.

I've been a ferocious reader since before kindergarten and I have never been able to read a Margaret Atwood book. Every time I pick one up I get overcome with an immense feeling of fatigue! If I force myself to open it my eyes immediately close and from what friends and family tell me, I begin to snore!

I'm not sure what causes this. It can't be her politics. I've read Farley Mowat and enjoyed his stories. Whatever it is, I just can't count myself as a member of her readership. However, she has no reason to care if just one person like myself doesn't buy any of her books. Enough government grant money is floated for schools and libraries to get copies, not to mention outright grants and endowments that require no actual sales anyway!

Give me a Robert B Parker or if you insist on being Canadian a Charles Lint anytime! Even Spider Robinson would do, since we Canadians adopted him.

[August1991]

I've been a ferocious reader since before kindergarten and I have never been able to read a Margaret Atwood book.

Sorry for the thread hijack but I agree - and my opinion of the CBC/Quebecor spat is only indirectly related to my opinion of Atwood.

Someone once encouraged me to read an Atwood book so I read Surfacing. I found it to be very badly written. (Not badly written like James Joyce - badly written like Second Prize in a high school essay contest.) IMV, Gabrielle Roy is not a great writer but she writes better than Atwood and at least Roy described a place and time. Roger Lemelin was a better writer in French Canada and in English Canada, I happen to prefer Robertson Davies both for style and content. Mordecai Richler was a good writer.

Despite this first impression, I then read Atwood's Survival and figured out her game. She writes not about Canada but for urban, central English Canadians. Years later, someone convinced me to try again so I started Cat's Eye (?) and then the one about surrogate women in a dystopian future. I got nowhere. I'll give Atwood credit for one thing: like Joyce Carol Oates and Balzac, she's prolific.

It seems so easy and yet it is hard to write well. No Canadian, English or French, is the equal of, say, Lev Tolstoi, Isaac Bashevis Singer or Balzac.

I have never met Margaret Atwood but I had a friend who spent a day with her. He reported that she is a smart self-promoter. I suppose in this modern world, to be a successful writer - or successful anything requiring broad-based sales, one has to be a good self-promoter.

Some time ago, I recall walking into a bookstore in London and seeing a stack of her latest novel at the entrance. And in Finland (or was it Germany?), I remember seeing one of her books in the "Latest Publications" sections. I guess she has her readership, or at least some people are looking for a change. (I wonder what constitutes a "best seller" in Finland or Germany.)

Shakespeare and Molière (and Tolstoi, Singer, Balzac, Maugham and the artful self-promoter Ernest Hemingway) can no longer self-promote so maybe we all can conclude that their writing is good. What will future generations make of Atwood's writings? (As I always say at this point, who remembers Arnold Bennett?)

----

A last aside while I'm indulging this thread hijack: we have two Canadas because we have two languages and two literatures (whether good or bad). That's not necessarily reason to have two political states.

Edited October 24, 2011 by August1991

[punked]

Especially when considering CBC got money from that same fund, above and beyond their $1.1 billion handout.

You really think their case is equally as effective if they disclosed that Quebecor contributes about as much as they receive from the government?

I fail to see your point. CBC gets what 1.1 Billion plus those tax credits so what 1.5 Billion? Quebecor gets 350 million or so in tax credits and other grants and rebates. However CBC should say what they do with tax payer money and Quebecor shouldn't why?

"All animals are equal some are more equal than others....." Is this what you are saying. Lets agree here you spend tax payer money you should say what you spend it on otherwise we create a double standard. Do you not agree?

[Boges]

I fail to see your point. CBC gets what 1.1 Billion plus those tax credits so what 1.5 Billion? Quebecor gets 350 million or so in tax credits and other grants and rebates. However CBC should say what they do with tax payer money and Quebecor shouldn't why?

"All animals are equal some are more equal than others....." Is this what you are saying. Lets agree here you spend tax payer money you should say what you spend it on otherwise we create a double standard. Do you not agree?

Well the debate here isn't that the CBC shouldn't get that money, that's a debate we can have though.

But if they get that money for being the National broadcaster then that makes them a Crown Corp and subject to Freedom of Information requests which they've refused on many occasions to comply with.

CBC themselves brought this issue issue of what Quebecor gets in money that's available to all broadcaster. They probably should have just kept their mouths shut because this "get the facts" thing makes them look bad.

[cybercoma]

I don't need to see what CBC or Quebecor does with "my" money. I have a say in "my" money when I vote in an election and get an MP in my riding. It's up to that represented to decide what to do with my money. If I don't like it, next election I vote for someone different. Where every nickel and dime goes after that doesn't matter nor should I even be able to audit where every last dime goes. If I don't want CBC getting my money or Quebecor getting money, then I should express that to my MP by demanding that they reduce their funding. If parliament decides not to, then Canadians through their representatives have decided where their money goes. This notion that all these books should be open and we should be determining where every last penny goes is a bit much if you ask me.

[punked]

Well the debate here isn't that the CBC shouldn't get that money, that's a debate we can have though.

But if they get that money for being the National broadcaster then that makes them a Crown Corp and subject to Freedom of Information requests which they've refused on many occasions to comply with.

CBC themselves brought this issue issue of what Quebecor gets in money that's available to all broadcaster. They probably should have just kept their mouths shut because this "get the facts" thing makes them look bad.

According to Federal Accountability Act which passed by the Conservative government in 2004 the CBC is subject to Freedom of information requests however information which "relates to its journalistic, creative or programming activities" the cbc has the right to censor. The CBC is heading to court right now to clarify what that means and until clarification comes down they have every right to censor what they think falls under that category. That is what this is all about. CBC having their day in court.

Unless you would want to treat one Broadcasting Corporation differently under the letter of the law then another. You would never want that though right?

Edited October 25, 2011 by punked

[Shwa]

According to Federal Accountability Act which passed by the Conservative government in 2004 the CBC is subject to Freedom of information requests however information which "relates to its journalistic, creative or programming activities" the cbc has the right to censor. The CBC is heading to court right now to clarify what that means and until clarification comes down they have every right to censor what they think falls under that category. That is what this is all about. CBC having their day in court.

Unless you would want to treat one Broadcasting Corporation differently under the letter of the law then another. You would never want that though right?

The Federal Accountability Act and Access to Information and Privacy Acts don't apply to Quebecor.

So we don't know about all the lying, fraudulent, deceiving crap that is going on with them. Well, unless you turn on SunTV.

[Black Dog]

Well, Atwood is a maven of political correctness. She's the modern day equivalent of the WCTU because she claims a higher moral plane. She doesn't have "broad-based influence" but she can drum up enough support to motivate a modern day, left wing English Canadian (Toronto, Ontario) nationalist mob.

You can bet that if Harper takes on the CBC, even asking for a paltry 10% cut in its budget, Atwood and her ilk will start the Internet drums beating.

Who is your dealer? Sounds like you've been getting some wicked shit lately.

[Boges]

Quebecor doesn't receive 1.1 billion in federal money that's supposed to go to contributing "to shared national consciousness and identity" whatever that means.

[Shwa]

Quebecor doesn't receive 1.1 billion in federal money that's supposed to go to contributing "to shared national consciousness and identity" whatever that means.

And the CBC is accountable for taxpayer's money. Is Quebecor?

No you say? Pity.

However, I can understand that you would know what "shared national consciousness and identity" means. That is pretty evident.

Edited October 25, 2011 by Shwa

[Boges]

However, I can understand that you would know what "shared national consciousness and identity" means. That is pretty evident.

Is that Battle of the Blades or Little Mosque on the Prairies. Does going to a mayor's home display a shared national consciousness?

How about buying Cornation's Street, Jeoparty and Wheel of Fortune?

How can you not differentiate in your mind public money that's available to everyone. G4TV Canada, Food Network Canada, Nat Geo Canada, Slice, Global, CTV, City, MTV Canada, CBC, Quebecor etc.

And money that's only given to the CBC to fulfill a specific mandate.

[William Ashley]

I think an all canadian content rule for the cbc would be good.

The clutches of carnation andnwheel of course show canadas stong cultural ties. They are hugely popular shows.

CBC funding shouldn't be in question operational needs and aadequette arts funding for programming sindicated by the government is where it shoukd be at that and suvbstantial local orofgramming from the grassnroots between midnight and 7am.

It is actually suprusing the cbc runs 1 buillion dollars, but how much is for arts funding?

h9wmmuch canadian arts funding do the other canadian networks provide?

How much money goes to canadian arts funding from sun? To canadian actors etc,...?

Edited October 25, 2011 by William Ashley

[Boges]

I think an all canadian content rule for the cbc would be good.

The clutches of carnation andnwheel of course show canadas stong cultural ties. They are hugely popular shows.

CBC funding shouldn't be in question operational needs and aadequette arts funding for programming sindicated vy the government is where it shoukd be at that and suvbstantial local orofgramming from the grassnroots between midnight and 7am.

Does Federal money go into purchasing those shows though?

[William Ashley]

Does Federal money go into purchasing those shows though?

what you thonk they just give their shows away, of course.

'Two-thirds of CBC's budget comes from taxpayers, one-third from ad revenue. "

You got to look at where the money goes not where it went.

Money that leaves fornthe us or non canadian c8ticzens leaves the canadian econony?

where is the cbc's money going?

does thst 1 billion turn into 1 billion taxes at 20% on personal i come dtax. Siddebtly tat 1 billion is 800 millionna dn 200 millionnof federak tax revenue.

Edited October 25, 2011 by William Ashley