CBC Spending Tax Dollars on A Little Black Book on Sun News

[BubberMiley]

Even though you misled by saying "this kind of money" and later admitted you didn't even know what kind of money, can you at least explain how one media outlet is "blacklisting" another one?

Wow. So after stating that the CBC spent "oodles" of money and later admitting that information was fabricated, then charging them with McCarthy-like "blacklisting" without any evidence whatsoever that this is what they are doing, we can see the CPC-bots clearly feel the public will just accept their fabricated controversies at face value without any questioning whatsoever.

How does a party get elected when they think the people who vote for them are too stupid to see through them?

[scribblet]

Wow. So after stating that the CBC spent "oodles" of money and later admitting that information was fabricated, then charging them with McCarthy-like "blacklisting" without any evidence whatsoever that this is what they are doing, we can see the CPC-bots clearly feel the public will just accept their fabricated controversies at face value without any questioning whatsoever.

How does a party get elected when they think the people who vote for them are too stupid to see through them?

I never 'fabricated' anything, your accusation is a fabrication. I gave you links in the first few posts as to where I got the info. from and a link to the actual document. If you don't like it too bad.

Edited May 13, 2013 by scribblet

[BubberMiley]

I never 'fabricated' anything, your accusation is a fabrication. I gave you links in the first few posts as to where I got the info. from and a link to the actual document. If you don't like it too bad.

Why do you refuse to explain how they are "blacklisting" the Sun media organization? That was a fabrication that wasn't referenced in your links.

Edited May 13, 2013 by BubberMiley

[August1991]

The CBC has been sympathetic to Steyn

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2008/06/13/f-rfa-macdonald.html

Your link dates from 2008, on an issue that the CBC badly reported.

No, I mean the CBC letting Steyn have three hours every week, as it does Michael Enright.

[August1991]

The CBC HAS given Levant a platform: for example: http://www.cbc.ca/player/Shows/Shows/More+Shows/ideacity/ID/2246138133/?page=2

... and even today, their "books" site has description of his book and links to his website.

Thank you, Icebound, for that link. I was unaware that the CBC "has a page" on Ezra Levant. (Cripes, it's almost like the FBI having a file on someone.)

This would be hilarious if it were not so serious.

It's an exaggeration, I know, but your CBC links to Steyn/Levant are like the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany or apartheid South Africa presenting examples of how well they treated oppressed victims. Your links are like Theresienstadt.

Edited May 14, 2013 by August1991

[August1991]

The problem here is that the Levant-CBC fight has turned personal. Sun has turned almost their ENTIRE mandate... into destruction of the CBC. As a result, almost their entire audience IS the CBC, defending itself.

I am not particularly fond of Lacroix, but Management, commentators, reporters, staff will all change. The institution remains and will remain.

If they want Sun to thrive, they have to take the same attitude, and build the institution.

People might be forgive for believing that what they ARE building, is just a platform for a personal vendetta.

I don't know who Lacroix is but I can understand why this fight has turned personal.

People at the CBC/Radio-Canada have their head in the taxpayer trough while journalism is going through a radical technological change.

Imagine if in 1890 we had had Horse-Canada (a federal government agency that provided horses to all Canadians) and then, someone invented the automobile.

Edited May 14, 2013 by August1991

[BubberMiley]

Thank you, Icebound, for that link. I was unaware that the CBC "has a page" on Ezra Levant. (Cripes, it's almost like the FBI having a file on someone.)

This would be hilarious if it were not so serious.

Don't worry. It's hillarious, but in a way you couldn't understand. The idea that a news organization would keep files about news is and people in the news is indeed very serious. I can totally see how it is just like the Soviet Union and the Nazis too. Is Art Bell aware of this?

Edited May 14, 2013 by BubberMiley

[Icebound]

...

It's an exaggeration, I know, .....

Yes. Exaggeration... A lot of pundits do that.... They exaggerate quite a bit.

Perhaps that is why they are not getting their 3 hours a week on the the CBC

[Icebound]

Imagine if in 1890 we had had Horse-Canada (a federal government agency that provided horses to all Canadians) and then, someone invented the automobile.

Imagine if in 2020, all your news comes from networks owned by Bell, Rogers, and Shaw... (maybe Sun, too, of course, although I doubt it). And taxing me about $150 a MONTH or more, for the privilege of receiving all this "high tech" information.

I think I would rather have news sources accountable to their "shareholders", in terms of content and veracity.... as opposed to being accountable to their shareholders only in terms of financial bottom line.

...

[The_Squid]

Imagine if in 1890 we had had Horse-Canada (a federal government agency that provided horses to all Canadians) and then, someone invented the automobile.

Imagine the horrors if such a silly and fictitious monopoly on transport was actually true! We would all be riding free horses I'm sure!

Why don't you at least try and come up with something with some basis in reality?

[guyser]

So how much money was spent on this horrible and debilitating black book again?

[August1991]

Imagine if in 2020, all your news comes from networks owned by Bell, Rogers, and Shaw... (maybe Sun, too, of course, although I doubt it). And taxing me about $150 a MONTH or more, for the privilege of receiving all this "high tech" information.

I think I would rather have news sources accountable to their "shareholders", in terms of content and veracity.... as opposed to being accountable to their shareholders only in terms of financial bottom line.

Huh? In this Internet age, it is absurd to claim that news comes from only three or four sources. There are zillions of blogs, and events around the world are often recorded on cellphones and uploaded within minutes. I often flip to the bottom of Bell/Rogers/Shaw MSM-type articles to read comments from people often better informed than the journalist of the article. There is no lack of original, independent analysis.

----

As to your "shareholder" argument, I get one vote every four years or so in an election - and this vote is mixed up with many other issues. The CBC, as a result, gets a free ride. CTV/Rogers/Bell/Videotron etc. have to sell advertising to customers everyday. They are closely attuned to what their audience wants. Which method is more "democratic"?

I agree however that the public monopolies which own the last 100m to our homes should not also be in the content business. Other than hydro, most Canadians have two wires into their homes: a cable wire or a telephone/DSL wire. Regardless of who your Internet provider is, if you link to the Internet by wire, then Shaw/Rogers/Videotron or Bell get a (large) piece of the pie - on a regular, monthly basis. It's a cash cow for them. (Danny Wiliams, Ted Rogers and Pierre Peladeau are not entrepreneurs; the federal government "gave" them a monopoly and made them rich.)

IMV, these companies should be restricted to operating a network, and specifically maintaining the last 100m of wire into people's homes. They should certainly not be in the business of producing content: running newspapers, satellite TVs, television stations, news channels and the like. I frankly don't think they should be in retail at all.

Hydro-Quebec sells me electricity. It doesn't sell me a toaster.

Edited May 15, 2013 by August1991

[Icebound]

Huh? In this Internet age, it is absurd to claim that news comes from only three or four sources. There are zillions of blogs, and events around the world are often recorded on cellphones and uploaded within minutes. I often flip to the bottom of Bell/Rogers/Shaw MSM-type articles to read comments from people often better informed than the journalist of the article. There is no lack of original, independent analysis.

----

As to your "shareholder" argument, I get one vote every four years or so in an election -

....

You may get only one vote every 4 years, but you get to rant about the CBC 24/7, and that, too, is a "vote". You get to rant to other media, in forums such as this, and guess what... even on the CBC forums themselves. You have lots of opportunity to "vote" your opinion about the CBC and anything else.... and those opinions help drive political direction. Debate at the Federal level happens because people such as you and I are debating it in the coffee shop.

In the internet age, you may be getting your information from zillions of sources, but few of us have the time to distill the news from the noise. In today's bottom-line mentality, news services are dropping their investigative services... all the more imperative than ever, to have someone without bottom-line pressures, who can do so.

And anyway, the internet age does not automatically mean that you are going to get your news.... do you have a guarantee that your government or your provider or your search engine will never filter?

.A very popular Canadian website, primarily catering to a particular profession, had a very good political forum... until recently. But one day the owner of the website woke up and decided that he did not like the tone of the debates, and simply shut down the political thread.

Wouldn't you rather have a place to vent that is free from such interference? Much more difficult for publicly-funded operations to do stuff like that, or you will be on their doorstep screaming, along with millions of others..

Speaking of which... how much of THIS site is publicly funded?

[August1991]

You may get only one vote every 4 years, but you get to rant about the CBC 24/7, and that, too, is a "vote". You get to rant to other media, in forums such as this, and guess what... even on the CBC forums themselves. You have lots of opportunity to "vote" your opinion about the CBC and anything else.... and those opinions help drive political direction. Debate at the Federal level happens because people such as you and I are debating it in the coffee shop.

....

Speaking of which... how much of THIS site is publicly funded?

Sorry, people rant and roar about CTV, Bell, Rogers and Videotron too, The difference is that they can take their business elsewhere. With the CBC/Radio-Canada, we have no choice. The CBC can put its hand in my pocket.

In fact, though, Bell and Videotron can put a hand in my pocket too. I happen to have a private ISP but that firm cannot connect directly to my home: it is forced to pay Videotron or Bell for the connection, the last 100m

-----

Years ago, posters (including me) raised the question of whether this forum is private or not, whether it relied on government money. I may be corrected but I believe it is run by the University of Lethbridge as a "private entity" (whatever that means, I assume it means that there is no "public" or government/taxpayer funding.)

Icebound, it is in our interest as individuals to co-operate. We use different institutions to do this: family, government, markets with prices, friendships. Other species co-operate through family, hierarchy or cleaning symbiosis.

Humans were the first species to co-operate using numbers. So, I happen to think that "markets with prices" was arguably the most significant institution ever invented by mankind.

Edited May 16, 2013 by August1991