cybercoma Posted October 23, 2014 Report Posted October 23, 2014 Anyone glued to their televisions yesterday, watching Peter Mansbridge report the days events may have noticed there was a stark contrast in CBC's delivery to the way American "News" networks present events of this nature. American reporter Mark Joyella writes that Mansbridge's coverage was "smart, careful, and absolutely un-American." Joyella observes, I never heard a second of dramatic music, never saw a full-screen wipe with a catchy graphic like TERROR ON PARLIAMENT HILL, and never, ever heard Mansbridge or any of the CBC’s reporters dip even a toe into the waters of self-promotion. For all the grief given to the CBC, we can be proud that they deliver things with the proper reverence to the gravity of the situation and without jumping to conclusions on unconfirmed information. Mansbridge went out of his way to confirm details and press interviewees when they delivered speculation and contradictory statements to him on the broadcast. Despite rumour going around Twitter that the soldier at the War Memorial had passed, Mansbridge was careful not to report this information until it was confirmed and safe to do so (i.e., the family was informed first). Read Joyella's reflections on the disparity between US Breaking News reporting and CBC's reporting at this link. Quote
cybercoma Posted October 23, 2014 Author Report Posted October 23, 2014 The point for discussion is this: U.S. reporting demonstrates the merging of news and entertainment. Do you think this is a problem or not? Quote
Topaz Posted October 23, 2014 Report Posted October 23, 2014 After a while, the only thing that started to get to me is the number of times one could see that shooting in the hallway. Canadian, English and American networks could get enough of it but I did and turn it off. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted October 23, 2014 Report Posted October 23, 2014 So let me get this straight...some Canadians can't get enough of American television programming, but prefer boring homegrown news production standards? I saw plenty of "sensationalism" on CTV last night, such as the constant looping of CPR efforts at the monuent. Odd that is was an American source that first revealed the name of the shooter, and American social media that provided the first photo (from a closed Twitter account). It's not news anymore....it's called "promotable content". Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
BubberMiley Posted October 23, 2014 Report Posted October 23, 2014 So let me get this straight...some Canadians can't get enough of American television programming, but prefer boring homegrown news production standards? I saw plenty of "sensationalism" on CTV last night, such as the constant looping of CPR efforts at the monuent.The OP was about CBC, not CTV. But speaking of people who can't get enough of their neighbouring country's programming, you were watching CTV? Quote "I think it's fun watching the waldick get all excited/knickers in a knot over something." -scribblet
bush_cheney2004 Posted October 23, 2014 Report Posted October 23, 2014 The OP was about CBC, not CTV. But speaking of people who can't get enough of their neighbouring country's programming, you were watching CTV? Of course.....what better way to see how Canadians react when "the chickens come home to roost". If you think it is odd for one American to watch CTV.ca on a single evening after a significant terrorist attack, think how odd it is for millions of Canadians to watch American programming daily for garden variety entertainment. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
eyeball Posted October 23, 2014 Report Posted October 23, 2014 The point for discussion is this: U.S. reporting demonstrates the merging of news and entertainment. Do you think this is a problem or not? It's a recipe for disaster. Quote I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
Shady Posted October 23, 2014 Report Posted October 23, 2014 Comparing CBC to news networks isn't really apt. A more apt comparison would be to compare it to PBS or NPR. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted October 23, 2014 Report Posted October 23, 2014 Comparing CBC to news networks isn't really apt. A more apt comparison would be to compare it to PBS or NPR. Agreed.....Fox and CNN do not get over $1 billion per year from the government. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
waldo Posted October 23, 2014 Report Posted October 23, 2014 Comparing CBC to news networks isn't really apt. A more apt comparison would be to compare it to PBS or NPR. can you elaborate? Do you have data to support your assertion? Quote
waldo Posted October 23, 2014 Report Posted October 23, 2014 Agreed.....Fox and CNN do not get over $1 billion per year from the government. which has what to do with what in terms of CBC News Network? Surely, you're not going to suggest the content is influenced by government funding, are you? Quote
Shady Posted October 23, 2014 Report Posted October 23, 2014 can you elaborate? Do you have data to support your assertion? What do you mean by data? One is government run and funded by tax payers. One isn't. Comparing them isn't apt. Quote
waldo Posted October 23, 2014 Report Posted October 23, 2014 What do you mean by data? One is government run and funded by tax payers. One isn't. Comparing them isn't apt. so what? Are you claiming CBC News Network... isn't a... news network? Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted October 23, 2014 Report Posted October 23, 2014 The CBC is government chartered, financed, and controlled. It is state sponsored broadcasting. Fact. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Derek 2.0 Posted October 23, 2014 Report Posted October 23, 2014 Personally I went between CBC and FNC and thought the coverage by both was responsible, very quick to qualify reports as "unconfirmed" etc, likewise both networks were cautious in labeling the events as a terrorist attack until further details became known, on the FNC broadcast, both Jon Scott and Neil Cavuto correcting and qualifying guests remarks .....With CBC, I feel not only Mansbridge but also Evan Solomon did stellar jobs in reporting the days events. Quote
cybercoma Posted October 23, 2014 Author Report Posted October 23, 2014 Comparing CBC to news networks isn't really apt. A more apt comparison would be to compare it to PBS or NPR. This is an interesting point. Can you elaborate? Quote
guyser Posted October 23, 2014 Report Posted October 23, 2014 (edited) Idiots abound. Edited October 23, 2014 by Guyser2 Quote
waldo Posted October 23, 2014 Report Posted October 23, 2014 The CBC is government chartered, financed, and controlled. It is state sponsored broadcasting. Fact. yes, what is a fact is your ever present and brazillionth time nattering nonsense about the CBC being government controlled/state sponsored... particularly as you originally (and repeatedly) have fronted it as the measure of how you also claim CBC political content is influenced by the Canadian government. imagine, you're working hard to derail yet another thread... that's most unlike you! Quote
cybercoma Posted October 23, 2014 Author Report Posted October 23, 2014 One is government run and funded by tax payers. One isn't. Comparing them isn't apt. You elaborated a bit more here, but can you expand on this? Why does this make a difference? Quote
cybercoma Posted October 23, 2014 Author Report Posted October 23, 2014 (edited) Damn dude, you truly are an idiot without facts, But by all means, play your little pissy game from afar. No matter what, still a f'ing idiot. yes, what is a fact is your ever present and brazillionth time nattering nonsense about the CBC being government controlled/state sponsored... particularly as you originally (and repeatedly) have fronted it as the measure of how you also claim CBC political content is influenced by the Canadian government. imagine, you're working hard to derail yet another thread... that's most unlike you! Why even reply to the nonsense? Shady has an actual point to make that he hasn't fully expanded on yet and you guys bring attention to stuff that doesn't even need to be dignified with a response. I would rather push Shady to give a fully articulated response because he seems to actually have an argument worth considering. What he's saying suggests that the networks have to be entertainment, while state-funded news sources don't. There's a demonstrable difference in the presentation of the news between the two as a result of their funding sources. (At least I think that's what he means. That's why I want him to expand on his point.) So let's flesh this out a bit. Is it a problem or not? If private funding means you have to be entertaining, how does that affect our understanding of current events, if at all? Is infotainment a problem or not? Why or why not? What implications does this have for the way news is delivered going forward? Edited October 23, 2014 by cybercoma Quote
guyser Posted October 23, 2014 Report Posted October 23, 2014 Shady has an actual point to make that he hasn't fully expanded on yet and you guys bring attention to stuff that doesn't even need to be dignified with a response.You are correct, I will amend. Quote
waldo Posted October 23, 2014 Report Posted October 23, 2014 Shady has an actual point to make that he hasn't fully expanded on yet and you guys bring attention to stuff that doesn't even need to be dignified with a response. since MLW member 'Shady' can't be bothered to qualify his statements here... and since you've crafted a position/argument by proxy, let me add to it: - I only have 2 references to personally compare, CBC and CTV... and I rarely watch CTV. However, when I have turned on CTV News Channel I've never encountered any semblance of "infotainment" masquerading as news delivery. From a Canadian context/perspective just what is "news infotainment"? Is something like the Fifth Estate (replayed on CBC News Network) to be interpreted as Canadian style news infotainment? Just what is CBC being compared to here? Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted October 23, 2014 Report Posted October 23, 2014 The obvious point is that networks receiving more than 1$ billion in government subsidies do not have to hustle and compete for audience share compared to those that do not receive such large gifts from taxpayers. Duh ! Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
waldo Posted October 23, 2014 Report Posted October 23, 2014 The obvious point is that networks receiving more than 1$ billion in government subsidies do not have to hustle and compete for audience share compared to those that do not receive such large gifts from taxpayers. Duh ! American style reality news programs... or American style news magazine programs... or American style 3-hour early morning programs, etc.,... are not News Networks! Quote
Big Guy Posted October 23, 2014 Report Posted October 23, 2014 That cell phone footage by Josh WIngrove of the Globe and mail was quite unnerving and informative. I wonder if he was paid for it, if the American networks paid for it and if it will become part of some political party ad after the new legislation on copyright is passed. Quote Note - For those expecting a response from Big Guy: I generally do not read or respond to posts longer then 300 words nor to parsed comments.
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.