Minister Moore and SunTV

[guyser]

We only have one publicly funded broadcaster in this country. If I apply for and receive an improvement grant for my private business, it doesn't make my business a publicly owned entity.

Thats true.

It makes you a recipient of public funds. Same as the old dog

[Black Dog]

My point is, there's an obvious difference between production grants received by private corporations and the government funding that the CBC receives. It's not even the same playing field. Private companies have to apply and be approved for government grants. There are checks and balances along the way to ensure they qualify. The CBC has no such checks and balances.

Prove it.

[guyser]

Again, if the CBC wants to privatize and stand in the application line for government grants like the rest of them, I have absolutely no problem with that.

If the private broadcasters want to earn their own money they should fund all their programs themselves.

[guyser]

There's nothing to prove.

Plain english answer would be "I can't prove my allegation"

The checks and balances come from the taxpayers,

No, it comes from the mandate that is given the CBC , why something the private b roadcasters dont have.

Such a travesty

[guyser]

Would you like the same thing to apply to all the private companies, and for profit organizations who also rely on government grants? I think many independent artists and social organizations may have a problem with this.

No not at all, however I posted that just to counter the erroneous assumption made earlier.

I am fine with funding to the arts , and I am fine with funding to the CBC .

[Black Dog]

There's nothing to prove. The CBC does not receive funding in the same way as a government grant, they do not apply for it. They work off an annual budget the same as any other public sector entity.

So they don't have the same checks and balances as an organization that applies for grants. So what? that doesn't suggest there are no checks and balances within the bureaucracy.

The checks and balances come from the taxpayers, they are the ones that the CBC is supposed to be working for which is why this whole porn issue came up. Some members of the public don't feel this is appropriate use of public funds, and so are asking for some accountability.

Don't be so naive.

[guyser]

I didn't allege anything. It is a fact that a government grant and budgeted federal expense are handled in different ways.

Apologies good sir!

I should have said " I cant prove your allegations" ....BD asked, not me.

Sorry.

[Black Dog]

So you are chalking this up to a conspiracy against the CBC? I can live with that, but I don't agree.

More like a vendetta by Quebecor.

Manufactured outrage rooted in self-interest.

[Black Dog]

Whatever, my personal opinion as a voter and a taxpayer is that the content in question has no right being funded by tax dollars, regardless of the motivation for bringing it to the public's attention. And for the record, I'm not against funding the CBC as Canada's public broadcaster in principle, I'm against funding it as a public entity who functions as a private one. If they wish to be a public entity, then they need to show some accountability for the people they represent. And I do have a problem with the advantage that they possess being in direct competition with the private broadcasters while being a publicly funded entity.

So you want to be able to access the salary and identity of any government employee at any time?

[Evening Star]

I think the problem Sun has with the CBC is not that they lack validity, it's that they are a publicly funded broadcasting corporation that has an obvious bias, which contradicts their purpose an Canada's broadcasting voice.

I disagree that this is obvious. I've questioned this claim several times on this board and have never seen anyone actually back this point up. It's obvious to me what the biases of the National Post or Toronto Star are: their editorials are quite open about their leanings. I don't see anything comparable on CBC.

Edited February 3, 2012 by Evening Star

[guyser]

I will rephrase my comment for you, To me, the CBC's bias is obvious.

That much is obvious. But that is an opinion and one not backed up with facts and figures.

The most recent example of obvious bias I can think of was the CBC's "Vote Compass", the online voters quiz they ran on their during the last election. Bias can be subjective and subtle in nature, making it difficult to back up. Can you provide any objective examples of bias within the publications you mentioned?

Vote Compass was a disaster .

But the devil is in the details.Vote Compass wasn't designed nor built by CBC staffers, but rather 15 election researchers and co-ordinated by the U of T . CBC put it up and took the heat for it.

But more importantly, this Liberal bias , the most recent example , happned way back in March. The election was in May....so CBC has been bias free for 9 months !

Pretty damn hard to get people to believe you when one example, from almost a year ago and by non-staffers of the place you want to slag.

Manufactered outrage is right.

[fellowtraveller]

Moore is a guy worth watching.

He may well be heir to Harper in a few years.

[Evening Star]

Bias can be subjective and subtle in nature, making it difficult to back up. Can you provide any objective examples of bias within the publications you mentioned?

If it's subjective and subtle in nature, it's probably not obvious.

Perhaps "bias" was the wrong term for me to use wrt the Post and Star but they both have clear e.g. editorial positions, to the point of endorsing candidates in every election (Conservative and NDP in the last election, respectively). These endorsements are a matter of record and clearly testify to the stances taken by the editorial boards of those papers. They both run editorials and opinion pieces in every issue that give opinions on the issues. These tend to reflect distinct points of view (Heather Mallick vs Christie Blatchford). I just checked the current issues online and their perspectives are pretty evident.

(Imo, it might actually go a little further than this: compare e.g. this headline in the Post: http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/01/07/dan-gardner-conservatism-in-canada-would-be-called-socialism-in-the-u-s/ to the headline used for the same piece in the Ottawa Citizen: http://www.dangardner.ca/index.php/books/item/91-harper-conservatives-more-canadian-than-conservative )

I don't see anything comparable in the CBC. Power and Politics, for example, bends over backwards to have one representative of each major party on every panel. (I just went to the website for a sample. A panel featuring Ian Capstick, Stockwell Day, Liza Frulla and John Ivison, for example, definitely doesn't seem biased to me.) A previous time when I was debating the same topic with someone on this board, I went to the CBC site and did a search for pieces on Harper vs pieces on Ignatieff and didn't see evidence of any strong bias. So it's not obvious to me at all and I'd want to see someone back up the claim if they're going to make it. There are many writers and scholars who have studied media bias: they're able to research the sources and show methodology to support their claims. It does seem like something that can be supported by more than purely subjective impressions. I haven't heard of any studies that have shown a strong political bias in CBC coverage.

(Fwiw, btw, many people on Babble strongly believe that the CBC is biased in favour of corporate power and against the NDP.)

[mentalfloss]

This whole thing is becoming a huge joke and looks bad on the Sun and the ministry of citizenship.

Sun TV plays dirty with 'CBC porn'

Edited February 4, 2012 by mentalfloss