DogOnPorch Posted March 1, 2013 Report Posted March 1, 2013 Yup...it's right in the mandate. But if Mike wishes to believe that folks get on air w/o first crossing their hearts and hoping to die re: the Broadcast Act, he's more than welcome. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
waldo Posted March 1, 2013 Report Posted March 1, 2013 Yup...it's right in the mandate. But if Mike wishes to believe that folks get on air w/o first crossing their hearts and hoping to die re: the Broadcast Act, he's more than welcome.no - the relevant reference is not within the CBC mandate, nor within the Broadcasting Act (where the CBC mandate originates). the relevant reference appears within a CBC Corporate Policy... per my previous post, a CBC spokesperson is quoted as stating the policy does not apply to David Sukuzi. The specific reference appears as a part of the CBC's Corporate Policy 2.2.17 - Political Activity: Certain categories of CBC/Radio-Canada employees are restricted from engaging in political activity defined as running for public office or publicly supporting a candidate. The following positions fall under the restrictions identified in the procedures. Restricted Editorial and Production Employees are Producers, Associate Producers, News or Information Programming Supervisors, Editors, Journalists, Reporters, On-Air Personalities and employees representing the Corporation in public contact. Designated Management Employees are members of the Executive Group and management employees who report directly to the Executive Group. Non Restricted Employees are all other employees in the Corporation not designated in either of the above categories. In certain circumstances the employees in the non-restricted category may apply for Leave without pay to pursue political activities as per the provisions provided. . again, per my previous quote, I expect the CBC can determine just how its own corporate policies are applied - yes? As David Suzuki is a freelancer who does not work exclusively for CBC, this policy does not apply to him, Angus McKinnon, spokesman for CBC, wrote in an e-mail. (His endorsement) is an expression of his personal opinion. It is not being expressed in his capacity as host of CBCs The Nature of Things and does not represent the views of the corporation. Quote
DogOnPorch Posted March 1, 2013 Report Posted March 1, 2013 (edited) He's doing it anyways...so it matters not. He's beyond mere mortals like you and me. And I doubt he'll change. Edited March 1, 2013 by DogOnPorch Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
waldo Posted March 1, 2013 Report Posted March 1, 2013 He's doing it anyways...so it matters not. He's beyond mere mortals like you and me. And I doubt he'll change. . contrary to your earlier statements, as Dr. Suzuki has no employment constraints preventing him from offering a personal endorsement... yes, as you say, "he is doing it, anyways". Perhaps you could elaborate on how exercising an entitlement equates to being, 'beyond mere mortal'??? Quote
DogOnPorch Posted March 1, 2013 Report Posted March 1, 2013 . contrary to your earlier statements, as Dr. Suzuki has no employment constraints preventing him from offering a personal endorsement... yes, as you say, "he is doing it, anyways". Perhaps you could elaborate on how exercising an entitlement equates to being, 'beyond mere mortal'??? Because a CBC spokesperson says one thing, the President another and the Broadcast code yet another, I'd say they're making it up as they go along. Believe it or not, there was a time in the distant past when Dr. Suzuki was a mere Roy Bonisteel replacement. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
waldo Posted March 2, 2013 Report Posted March 2, 2013 Because a CBC spokesperson says one thing, the President another and the Broadcast code yet another, I'd say they're making it up as they go along. Believe it or not, there was a time in the distant past when Dr. Suzuki was a mere Roy Bonisteel replacement. - we know what the CBC spokesperson said... I quoted it, showing that per that CBC spokesperson, Dr. Suzuki is not constrained by the CBC in offering his personal political endorsement - I know the CBC mandate you mentioned (as originates from within the Broadcast Act) doesn't support your earlier claim - I told you this and advised specifically that the related reference you're attempting to leverage actually appears within a CBC Corporate Policy. I quoted you that corporate policy, verbatim. - in this, your latest iteration, you now mention the (CBC) President... but amazingly, don't attribute an actual quote to him. Do you have such a quote... can you actually quote anything... anything at all, to support your claim? Anything? Quote
DogOnPorch Posted March 2, 2013 Report Posted March 2, 2013 (edited) At some point he would have been bound by the rules like a simple morning radio show host...but, like an aging star, he's entered his bloated red giant stage where the star IS the rule. There was a time when he was just a nerdy fellow with a radio show called "Quirks and Quarks"...still on after all these years. Then he was a common replacement for Roy Bonisteel on "Man Alive". Then he got moved to "The Nature of Things"...now "David Suzuki's The Nature of Things". It remains that CBC is a taxpayer funded entity without which Dr Suzuki would not be the rich celebrity he is today. Edited March 2, 2013 by DogOnPorch Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
waldo Posted March 2, 2013 Report Posted March 2, 2013 At some point he would have been bound by the rules except... you've not offered anything specific to suggest what rules he, supposedly, was/is bound by. Oh, wait... are you now attempting to interpret CBC's own corporate policy for them? Quote
DogOnPorch Posted March 2, 2013 Report Posted March 2, 2013 except... you've not offered anything specific to suggest what rules he, supposedly, was/is bound by. Oh, wait... are you now attempting to interpret CBC's own corporate policy for them? Meh...I worked for an affiliate for years. I'm somewhat familiar w/ the terrain. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
waldo Posted March 2, 2013 Report Posted March 2, 2013 Meh...I worked for an affiliate for years. I'm somewhat familiar w/ the terrain. apparently... not familiar enough. Not familiar enough so as to have improperly mentioned the CBC mandate and the Broadcast Act. Not familiar enough so as to have attempted to leverage the relevant CBC Corporate Policy. Not familiar enough so as not to have attempted to interpret a corporate policy for the CBC. Not... familiar... enough! Quote
DogOnPorch Posted March 2, 2013 Report Posted March 2, 2013 I did take long coffee breaks. My previous post stands. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
August1991 Posted March 2, 2013 Author Report Posted March 2, 2013 (edited) WIP has nailed it although since this is an August thread I think the simpler view is that August just wanted to link an old creepy guy who likes young, but presumably of age, females to another really really creepy guy who liked young, not of age, kids and is now known posthumously as a pedophile. So, really, the thread should be closed down for the insinuation that Suzuki is somehow comparable to a pedophile creep based on some flimsy evidence that would not stand up in court and, for which, I believe a libel suit could be brought against August for this clumsy association. IOW, the thread started out as nothing more than an ad hominem attack and has only improved since then thanks to WIP and eyeball. And no doubt, a similar argument in 1984 about Jimmy Saville, shut down any discussion. msj, you're an accountant. Is sunlight bad? ---- In Canada today, it is easy to oppose Stephen Harper. He's not part of the established elite. Rather, it is much harder to oppose the New Establishment: public-sector unions, Radio-Canada, the CBC, le Plateau, the Annex, the nomenklatura. So, who does Brigette de Pape choose to oppose? Edited March 2, 2013 by August1991 Quote
ReeferMadness Posted March 2, 2013 Report Posted March 2, 2013 This whole episode is a non-event. If Levant thinks that Suzuki is a sleaze-bag, let him prove it. All he's demonstrated is that Suzuki has charged for a public appearance and asked to be escorted by female body guards. All this has done is lower my opinion of Levant and show how desperate people are to have something to hang on Suzuki. Truly pathetic. All I can say is get a life. Quote Unlimited economic growth has the marvelous quality of stilling discontent while preserving privilege, a fact that has not gone unnoticed among liberal economists. - Noam Chomsky It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it. - Upton Sinclair
ReeferMadness Posted March 2, 2013 Report Posted March 2, 2013 Oh, and the reference to Jimmy Savile? Truly beneath contempt. Dig up some evidence - put up or shut up!! Quote Unlimited economic growth has the marvelous quality of stilling discontent while preserving privilege, a fact that has not gone unnoticed among liberal economists. - Noam Chomsky It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it. - Upton Sinclair
jbg Posted March 3, 2013 Report Posted March 3, 2013 He's certainly not a charlatan, but he's not used to being treated as anything other than the final word on the subject. How is he not a charlatan? Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
waldo Posted March 3, 2013 Report Posted March 3, 2013 How is he not a charlatan? and how is Dr. Suzuki a... charlatan? Quote
jbg Posted March 3, 2013 Report Posted March 3, 2013 and how is Dr. Suzuki a... charlatan? His self-serving arguments, which I doubt even he believes, about AGW. Remember, he's not a weather scientist. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
waldo Posted March 3, 2013 Report Posted March 3, 2013 His self-serving arguments, which I doubt even he believes, about AGW. Remember, he's not a weather scientist.nice hand-wave... do you have anything specific - something beyond your usual broad generalizations? Quote
DogOnPorch Posted March 3, 2013 Report Posted March 3, 2013 How is he not a charlatan? He's a Zoologist...not a charlatan. Here's a charlatan... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erich_von_D%C3%A4niken Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
August1991 Posted March 4, 2013 Author Report Posted March 4, 2013 This whole thread should have been deleted due to the attempted and horribly failed connection of Savile and Suzuki. Guyser, I disagree with you but I will defend your right to post here. Quote
Sleipnir Posted March 4, 2013 Report Posted March 4, 2013 His self-serving arguments, which I doubt even he believes Such as? Quote "All you need in this life is ignorance and confidence; then success is sure." - Mark Twain
PIK Posted March 4, 2013 Report Posted March 4, 2013 How do you respect a man that tells kids to send him your money or santa clause is going to drown, it is all about the money with him. Quote Toronto, like a roach motel in the middle of a pretty living room.
waldo Posted March 4, 2013 Report Posted March 4, 2013 How do you respect a man that tells kids to send him your money or santa clause is going to drown, it is all about the money with him. are you thinking of the kids, PIK? let's show how desperate you really are... your reference is to a Christmas 2011 campaign the Suzuki Foundation ran... as a charitable foundation, it is entitled to solicit for donations in aid of it's stated goals. This specific campaign focused on sea-ice melting translated into an effect on the iconic 'Santa Claus' symbolism... it wasn't tied to any age group and was specifically titled, 'Where Will Santa Live?'. The campaign allowed anyone to click on select images within a 'poster', one where the respective image selections translated into donation processing and, ultimately, an e-card being sent to the donor. Those choosing to donate would, of course, receive a tax receipt for 100% of the donation amount. PIK, perhaps you might choose to attack the specific words of the campaign: Why give? We hope you'll forgive us for having some fun with a beloved holiday figure. But climate change is no laughing matter. Global warming is a serious problem, and poses a very real risk to all the winter traditions and experiences we as Canadians hold dear. By supporting our “Where Will Santa Live?” campaign, you will be helping us develop a clean, renewable energy plan for Canada, affect climate policy decisions at a national and provincial level, and provide more resources to Canadians on how to go carbon neutral at home and at work, among many other initiatives. Learn more about our work to turn back climate change and how you can take action to be part of the solution. It's only through the generous support of people like you that we are able to work with government, business and individuals to conserve our environment through science-based education, outreach and policy work. . don't you feel petty, PIK? Oh wait, perhaps you're actually wanting to challenge the ice-melting affect... or its impacts - yes? Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.