Rex Murphy's Conflict of Interest on the Oilsands

[Michael Hardner]

http://canadalandshow.com/rex-murphy-paid-oil-sands-cbc-wont-disclose-discuss/

Thanks to Canadaland for this discussion. If you can believe it, the CBC actually refused to acknowledge that Murphy works on The National.

For bonus points, Google this issue to find the lack of mainstream coverage on this, but kudos to Canadaland for this piece.

https://www.google.ca/search?q=%22rex+murphy%22+%22conflict+of+interest%22&rlz=1C5CHFA_enCA556CA557&oq=%22rex+murphy%22+%22conflict+of+interest%22&aqs=chrome..69i57.9226j0j7&sourceid=chrome&espv=210&es_sm=119&ie=UTF-8

Does Big Journalism draw the circle of wagons closed ?

[waldo]

not from the claimed 'Liberal biased CBC'... surely not!

I'm not sure of the date of that podcast you've linked to, but the CBC has responded, from a CBC perspective, to questions on Rex Murphy's conflict of interest... thrust forward, apparently, by the reaction to Murphy's statements concerning Neil Young. Essentially, as he's not a full-time/regular CBC employee, Murphy is not bound by the CBC rules within its Journalistic Standards and Practices; rules that state that "CBC journalists do not express their own personal opinion because it affects the perception of impartiality and could affect an open and honest exploration of an issue." There is also an outright admission that the CBC encourages Murphy to, as I paraphrase, "take provocative stands... it's what we (the CBC) pay him to do."

that CBC statement: A question of conflict?

I've personally held strong reservations about Murphy's climate change denial, mostly because of the audience he commands through Cross Canada Checkup and the many times I've heard him (and his guests) state complete fallacies. However, whenever I'm driving around on a Sunday afternoon, I will tune into Cross Canada Checkup... not to listen to Rex Murphy; rather, to listen to the (mostly) diverse opinions of regular Canadians deciding to phone in.

[Michael Hardner]

not from the claimed 'Liberal biased CBC'... surely not!

I'm not sure of the date of that podcast you've linked to, but the CBC has responded, from a CBC perspective, to questions on Rex Murphy's conflict of interest... thrust forward, apparently, by the reaction to Murphy's statements concerning Neil Young. Essentially, as he's not a full-time/regular CBC employee, Murphy is not bound by the CBC rules within its Journalistic Standards and Practices; rules that state that "CBC journalists do not express their own personal opinion because it affects the perception of impartiality and could affect an open and honest exploration of an issue." There is also an outright admission that the CBC encourages Murphy to, as I paraphrase, "take provocative stands... it's what we (the CBC) pay him to do."

Yes, the podcast discusses that response, including CBC's closing off of "the bottom line". For my money, saying that your regular contributor to The National is a freelancer doesn't excuse non-disclosure of conflicts of interest. I don't care what is says on his paycheque, it's the job that defines what constitutes proper behavior.

I've personally held strong reservations about Murphy's climate change denial, mostly because of the audience he commands through Cross Canada Checkup and the many times I've heard him (and his guests) state complete fallacies. However, whenever I'm driving around on a Sunday afternoon, I will tune into Cross Canada Checkup... not to listen to Rex Murphy; rather, to listen to the (mostly) diverse opinions of regular Canadians deciding to phone in.

They also compliment his work on CCC in that show, by the way. I see the need for a Rex Murphy, but disclosure is a necessity. They did it when soliciting comments from a panel member who had familial contact with Justin Trudeau's organization, why not for this ?

The answer is that the MSM boats are sinking and they need their Don Cherrys, Rex Murphys, ... any crotchety white middle-aged male will do as long as he gets numbers from the aging TV audiences still out there...

[overthere]

I've personally held strong reservations about Murphy's climate change denial, mostly because of the audience he commands through Cross Canada Checkup and the many times I've heard him (and his guests) state complete fallacies. However, whenever I'm driving around on a Sunday afternoon, I will tune into Cross Canada Checkup... not to listen to Rex Murphy; rather, to listen to the (mostly) diverse opinions of regular Canadians deciding to phone in.

That is in itself a logical fallacy, since the diversity of persons who actually tune in to CBC is very doubtful.

He is longwinded, but Murphy is unfailingly polite in hearing them out, and refreshingly challenges them occasionally. He is one of the very few CBC commentators who make an attempt at balance.

He is very unlike somebody like the one trick pony Michael Enright( a longtime CBC staffer and radio personality) , who has no problem regularly violating this policy: " CBC journalists do not express their own personal opinion because it affects the perception of impartiality and could affect an open and honest exploration of an issue".

[waldo]

That is in itself a logical fallacy, since the diversity of persons who actually tune in to CBC is very doubtful.

He is longwinded, but Murphy is unfailingly polite in hearing them out, and refreshingly challenges them occasionally. He is one of the very few CBC commentators who make an attempt at balance.

He is very unlike somebody like the one trick pony Michael Enright( a longtime CBC staffer and radio personality) , who has no problem regularly violating this policy: " CBC journalists do not express their own personal opinion because it affects the perception of impartiality and could affect an open and honest exploration of an issue".

take the time to read what you presume to quote and comment on... I wrote "(mostly) diverse". In any case, I note you've interpreted my personal view on that audience diversity as lacking "sound reasoning", even though it's my personal interpretation. And, of course, you make a personal pronouncement on your own interpretation of that audience diversity and you provide diddly squat to support it. Is this your own, as you say, "logical fallacy"?

yes, typically, given the constraints of timing, the quirks of callers, Murphy does show patience. However, I have heard him many times shut callers down and 'cover it', after-the-fact, by emphasizing his want to get as many callers on as possible. I hear balance from Murphy on many occasions, particularly when he faces a caller with countering opinion. I certainly hear no balance from Murphy concerning global warming/climate change... that stems from the guests he chooses to present and the personal position he holds and presents. In this latter regard, whenever I've heard the subject discussed, I note what I interpret as an obvious pre-screening of callers to suit his personal agenda.

as for Enright, I know little of him... much as I wasn't aware of Murphy's actual job classification within CBC (one that doesn't hold him to the standards practice, I know nothing of Enright's classification. Apparently you do... or do you? I suggest if you have a concern/complaint about Enright, you take them up within the channels provided by CBC.

[bush_cheney2004]

http://canadalandshow.com/rex-murphy-paid-oil-sands-cbc-wont-disclose-discuss/

Thanks to Canadaland for this discussion. If you can believe it, the CBC actually refused to acknowledge that Murphy works on The National.

Oh, I can believe it. Government funded...government controlled. Just sayin'.....

[overthere]

take the time to read what you presume to quote and comment on... I wrote "(mostly) diverse". In any case, I note you've interpreted my personal view on that audience diversity as lacking "sound reasoning", even though it's my personal interpretation. And, of course, you make a personal pronouncement on your own interpretation of that audience diversity and you provide diddly squat to support it. Is this your own, as you say, "logical fallacy"?

yes, typically, given the constraints of timing, the quirks of callers, Murphy does show patience. However, I have heard him many times shut callers down and 'cover it', after-the-fact, by emphasizing his want to get as many callers on as possible. I hear balance from Murphy on many occasions, particularly when he faces a caller with countering opinion. I certainly hear no balance from Murphy concerning global warming/climate change... that stems from the guests he chooses to present and the personal position he holds and presents. In this latter regard, whenever I've heard the subject discussed, I note what I interpret as an obvious pre-screening of callers to suit his personal agenda.

as for Enright, I know little of him... much as I wasn't aware of Murphy's actual job classification within CBC (one that doesn't hold him to the standards practice, I know nothing of Enright's classification. Apparently you do... or do you? I suggest if you have a concern/complaint about Enright, you take them up within the channels provided by CBC.

Nice try. We both know that listeners to CBC- who are far more likely to be supporters of their bias than non listeners- and hence callers to the only national CBC live call in program are far less likely to be diverse in their opinions than non listeners.

I used Enright as an example to point out that comapred to other CBC institutions, Murphy is quite balanced and fair on CCC. His biggets problem is the lack of diversity of callers, its hard to represent both sides when only one listens or calls. But as we both note, Murphy does try despite that severe handicap.

I was not aware that Murphy has shows every week on climate change and the oilsands. Where exactly is that on my radio dial?

[Michael Hardner]

Government funded...government controlled.

And in this case, serving the masters in the ten gallon hats...

[waldo]

Nice try. We both know that listeners to CBC- who are far more likely to be supporters of their bias than non listeners- and hence callers to the only national CBC live call in program are far less likely to be diverse in their opinions than non listeners.

no - that's certainly not my experience in (somewhat) regularly listening to Cross Canada Checkup. I note callers extolling both positive and negative opinion on current government policy/decisions... or actions/statements of Opposition parties/members.

I was not aware that Murphy has shows every week on climate change and the oilsands. Where exactly is that on my radio dial?

not sure where you read/interpreted that... certainly not from anything I wrote.

[waldo]

And in this case, serving the masters in the ten gallon hats...

are you trying to catch flies with that honey?

[bleeding heart]

I listen to at least a portion of CC-Checkup regularly, because it's on when I pick up my wife from work.

The idea that there is "no diversity" amongst callers is flatly untrue....no doubt a subsection belief of the "leftist media" trope that not one the hypothesis' adherents has ever been able to demonstrate...Not. A. Single. Time. Ever.

I have never once listened to the program without hearing absolute opposite views emanating from the callers. Never.

(And yes,. Murphy, to me, does a fine job....his actual skill is in this sort of thing, his bloviating, arrogant stupidity on all other matters kept usually on the back burner....one or two points aside, as has been already mentioned in this thread.)

[The_Squid]

I used to like Rex Murphy. I didn't generally agree with him, but that's OK... but his recent denial of climate change always struck me as odd... and now we know why, don't we?

This should be something that is disclosed by the CBC.

It shows that they can't find people who will speak to the "other side" of the issue without them being a paid mouthpiece. That doesn't bode well for the climate deniers when the only people with that opinion are bought and paid for.

[waldo]

that CBC statement: A question of conflict?

further to the above posted recent days statement from the CBC's General Manager & Editor In Chief, as follows, a subsequent statement from the same 'Jennifer McGuire':

CBC News’ General Manager and Editor in Chief told the Vancouver Observer Monday that new rules about forcing “freelance” commentators, like Murphy, to reveal their speaking fees are being discussed.

“While in principle we support transparency, we are trying to understand the complications of demanding this obligation of our freelancers. We will have more to say about this soon,” said Jennifer McGuire in an e-mail.

[Michael Hardner]

are you trying to catch flies with that honey?

Please don't call me honey.

[waldo]

Please don't call me honey.

if you're serious my comment reflected upon the expression, "You catch more flies with honey than you do with vinegar"... your 'honey' being a response to the ongoing and repeated yet once again, "CBC is government controlled", trolling effort.

[Michael Hardner]

[surely] if you're serious

I'm not serious. And stop calling me Shirley.

[waldo]

I'm not serious. And stop calling me Shirley.

!

[Moonlight Graham]

[Murphy] is a vocal in his denial of climate change and proposed policy responses for it, such as the Green Shift. On September 29, 2011, Murphy hosted "Climate Change 101" at the University of Calgary. The event was sponsored by W. Brett Wilson, a Canadian entrepreneur and a former employee of Imperial Oil.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rex_Murphy

[TimG]

I used to like Rex Murphy. I didn't generally agree with him, but that's OK... but his recent denial of climate change always struck me as odd... and now we know why, don't we?

You know nothing because you cannot assume cause and effect. Rex likely decided to look seriously at the evidence and discovered, as many skeptics do, that the science is being completely misrepresented by alarmists. Once he made his views clear it makes sense that oil companies would seek him out since he is a well known personality.

On top of that Suzuki is host of a major science information show on CBC yet he makes a good living flogging big green causes. Why is this not a problem as well? Has the CBC disclosed how much money Suzuki makes from his political lobbying? Why are the people complaining about Rex not outraged by this too?

Edited February 19, 2014 by TimG

[The_Squid]

So who pays Suzuki? It's certainly no secret. It's his foundation after all.

Suzuki doesn't pretend to be an unbiased journalist. He certainly lays his cards out on the table. The same can't be said about Rex Murphy.

The part of your post about a grand conspiracy of scientists is merely tinfoil hat stuff that isn't worth responding to.

Edited February 19, 2014 by The_Squid

[TimG]

So who pays Suzuki? It's certainly no secret. It's his foundation after all.

As far as I can tell it was not hard to find out that Rex is a paid speaker at events and some of those events were oil industry sponsored. But that is not good enough for the complainers - they want to know exactly how much Rex was paid. I am pointing out that no knows how much Suzuki makes for his activist work. Why the hypocrisy?

Suzuki doesn't pretend to be an unbiased journalist.

Nonsense. he hosts a show about science and pretends to be an unbiased interpreter of scientific information. Yet he is a paid environmental activist has a huge interest in spreading misinformation when it supports their political objectives.

He certainly lays his cards out on the table. The same can't be said about Rex Murphy.

Rex has never kept his opinions secret. He lost his gig at the G&M years ago because the G&M editors are climate alarmists (this is pretty conclusive evidence that Rex's opinions on climate pre-dated any speaking engagements a oil industry events).

What exactly are you looking for? A declaration on the CBC website that Rex is paid to speak at events including oil industry events? Why not demand the same declaration on Suzuki's bio? If anything, Suzuki's financial interest is a much bigger concern because he is the host of a *science* show. Rex is the host of a call in show.

The part of your post about a grand conspiracy of scientists

Typical whining of a shameless hypocrite. Environmental organizations are political lobby groups. There is absolutely no moral difference between them and oil industry groups. If you have an issue with Rex being paid to speech at oil industry groups you should be more outraged by Suzuki being paid to *represent* environmental lobby groups (a much greater conflict of interest).

By refusing to acknowledge the much greater conflict interest proves that this is not about objectivity. This is about some environmental lobby group trying to smear someone who says things they don't like. Pathetic.

Edited February 19, 2014 by TimG

[gunrutz]

So who pays Suzuki? It's certainly no secret. It's his foundation after all.

Suzuki doesn't pretend to be an unbiased journalist. He certainly lays his cards out on the table. The same can't be said about Rex Murphy.

The part of your post about a grand conspiracy of scientists is merely tinfoil hat stuff that isn't worth responding to.

When you consider that his charitable organization is actually a lobby group we pay him with illegal tax breaks.

[The_Squid]

When you consider that his charitable organization is actually a lobby group we pay him with illegal tax breaks.

LOL ok

I'm sure if they were "illegal" as you claim then the government would be charging the foundation with a crime. Or are you saying that the CPC government is in on this conspiracy of illegal tax breaks to David Suzuki? Or are you just talking out your arse?

[Argus]

So who pays Suzuki? It's certainly no secret. It's his foundation after all.

Suzuki doesn't pretend to be an unbiased journalist. He certainly lays his cards out on the table. The same can't be said about Rex Murphy.

I don't believe Rex Murphy ever claimed to lack biases. And given the nature of the man I rather doubt this is a case of him being paid by the oil patch to give their views. He gives his own views, and naturally enough the oil patch likes what it hears and is willing to pay him to talk to them. I don't see a real issue here. Suzuki makes money out of climate change. To say otherwise is naive. If he changed his tune, if he decided there was no such thing, the money tap would rapidly run dry and he'd have to find another job.

[gunrutz]

LOL ok

I'm sure if they were "illegal" as you claim then the government would be charging the foundation with a crime. Or are you saying that the CPC government is in on this conspiracy of illegal tax breaks to David Suzuki? Or are you just talking out your arse?

Here you go sunshine http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/7-environmental-charities-face-canada-revenue-agency-audits-1.2526330, shove that up your arse.