waldo Posted July 20, 2015 Report Share Posted July 20, 2015 Duh! There's the 200,000 that are missing. And hey - are the Conservatives pandering to families - or were families already drawn to the Conservatives in the last election because of their family-friendly policies? Chicken or the egg. so... you don't wonder why others might question the integrity behind arriving at that number? As the article highlights: - In one undated analysis, a calculation on that number is redacted, citing exemptions normally used to protect sensitive political information. - A second calculation applied current UCCB uptake figures to regional Statistics Canada data and came up with the 200,000 estimate. - A revised analysis was completely redacted, save for a table breaking down families needing to apply by geographic location. - A third document had different regional estimates, but no methodology given. or that, per the article, there appears to be a very targeted choice of ridings for Poiliervre visits? Or that the article speaks to an existing national uptake rate of more than 95%... even before this Poiliervre electioneering campaign... before the promotion of this vote-buying pursuit! Damnit... help Pierre find the missing kids! Think of the kids... think of the kids! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted July 20, 2015 Author Report Share Posted July 20, 2015 The point is this - the article wasn't news and should not have been included in the news section, let alone being the top story. I would also say that this type of 'analysis' should be out of the realm on a public broadcaster (there was an article today about Thomas Mulcair that was just as disgusting with a misleading title and story). I think it's pretty obvious who the top brass at the CBC wants in charge, and they don't happen to be orange or blue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evening Star Posted July 20, 2015 Report Share Posted July 20, 2015 I dunno, most newspapers do include opinion pieces in their news sections. The Globe and the Citizen both link editorials and columns on their front pages today, for example. The prominence that was given to this particular (imo not especially interesting) opinion piece on the CBC page was excessive and problematic, though; I agree with you there. Editorials should come second to actual news. If you think that a public broadcaster should not run opinion pieces at all, then that is a debate to be had in and of itself. I think that one of the virtues of having a public broadcaster at all is that it can be a forum for debate, including viewpoints and depth of discussion that might be harder to find in private media. I do think that the CBC often falls short of what it could be doing here. If your view is that instead of doing this, the CBC tends to lean too hard to the mushy middle, I could see where you're coming from. I've generally always gone to the CBC first for news but, increasingly, I'm thinking of looking more towards other sources. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted July 20, 2015 Report Share Posted July 20, 2015 The point is this - the article wasn't news and should not have been included in the news section, let alone being the top story. I would also say that this type of 'analysis' should be out of the realm on a public broadcaster (there was an article today about Thomas Mulcair that was just as disgusting with a misleading title and story). I think it's pretty obvious who the top brass at the CBC wants in charge, and they don't happen to be orange or blue. wasn't news? If you can actually step-up and critique the article for inaccuracies... then you might have a position beyond you simply don't care for the content. As for top-story, the 'top' seems to cycle quite frequently with other stories taking that most viewed position. Not the realm of a public broadcaster? Why not... other than, again, without your criticism of the article you simply appear to not care for the content? The only Mulcair article that I see is this one: Tom Mulcair launches campaign-style tour of Ontario ... you must be referring to some other article, yes? . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted July 20, 2015 Author Report Share Posted July 20, 2015 I dunno, most newspapers do include opinion pieces in their news sections. You and I talked about this before too - then why have the CBC? The Globe and the Citizen both link editorials and columns on their front pages today, for example. I don't like that, but, I can choose to support them, or not. The prominence that was given to this particular (imo not especially interesting) opinion piece on the CBC page was excessive and problematic, though; I agree with you there. Editorials should come second to actual news. Editorials should come in their own section. They're becoming too much a part of...'news'. If you think that a public broadcaster should not run opinion pieces at all, then that is a debate to be had in and of itself. I'm not sure how I feel about that. I don't think they should be dressed up as news though. I think that one of the virtues of having a public broadcaster at all is that it can be a forum for debate, including viewpoints and depth of discussion that might be harder to find in private media. I might agree with that. I think that's a different issue though. I really can't debate with an article on CBC. This forum seems to be presenting more of an opportunity for that. I do think that the CBC often falls short of what it could be doing here. If your view is that instead of doing this, the CBC tends to lean too hard to the mushy middle, I could see where you're coming from. I think the CBC increasingly sees the government as a threat to them - with good reason, IMO. I've generally always gone to the CBC first for news but, increasingly, I'm thinking of looking more towards other sources. I'm in the same boat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poochy Posted July 20, 2015 Report Share Posted July 20, 2015 http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/conservative-suburban-ridings-gain-most-from-enriched-child-benefits-cp-1.3159439 The CBC has been in full campaign mode for weeks now, that is my current favorite story. What really are the odds that the people who voted for conservative policies, because they apparently thought they would benefit by doing so, might actually benefit from them a little more than others who didn't vote for them, why exactly would they have voted for them otherwise, and on what planet is this some sort of new thing in Canadian politics? Those poor left wingers are going to have an awful time if the NDP wins the election, how will their conscience allow them to benefit from the policies the NDP will enact, policies that will clearly be a greater benefit to the people who voted for them, otherwise, why would they? The CBC is an absolute travesty, the 'evil empire' should have already killed it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evening Star Posted July 20, 2015 Report Share Posted July 20, 2015 Editorials should come in their own section. They're becoming too much a part of...'news'. I don't entirely disagree here. I might agree with that. I think that's a different issue though. I really can't debate with an article on CBC. This forum seems to be presenting more of an opportunity for that. Ha, actually the comments sections on CBC articles aren't that different from a forum, but I think there is a value even to 'debate' between journalists or scholars who hold different views on the issues, even if the general public can't always participate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted July 20, 2015 Report Share Posted July 20, 2015 http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/conservative-suburban-ridings-gain-most-from-enriched-child-benefits-cp-1.3159439 The CBC has been in full campaign mode for weeks now, that is my current favorite story. the 'analysis' is from the Canadian Press . What really are the odds that the people who voted for conservative policies, because they apparently thought they would benefit by doing so, might actually benefit from them a little more than others who didn't vote for them, why exactly would they have voted for them otherwise, and on what planet is this some sort of new thing in Canadian politics? Those poor left wingers are going to have an awful time if the NDP wins the election, how will their conscience allow them to benefit from the policies the NDP will enact, policies that will clearly be a greater benefit to the people who voted for them, otherwise, why would they? is there a translator in the house? . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted July 20, 2015 Report Share Posted July 20, 2015 I don't entirely disagree here. the "Analysis" section does appear in its own distinct section on the home page... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evening Star Posted July 20, 2015 Report Share Posted July 20, 2015 Yeah, that's true, and you're also right that the top story does seem to rotate. (I've seen three different stories as the 'top story' so far today.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted July 20, 2015 Author Report Share Posted July 20, 2015 Yeah, that's true, and you're also right that the top story does seem to rotate. (I've seen three different stories as the 'top story' so far today.) The top story shouldn't come from the Analysis section. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan Posted July 20, 2015 Report Share Posted July 20, 2015 The top story shouldn't come from the Analysis section. Too much of what the CBC posts is unsubstantiated opinion for them to be able to make a distinction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonlight Graham Posted July 20, 2015 Report Share Posted July 20, 2015 The point is this - the article wasn't news and should not have been included in the news section, let alone being the top story. I would also say that this type of 'analysis' should be out of the realm on a public broadcaster (there was an article today about Thomas Mulcair that was just as disgusting with a misleading title and story). I think it's pretty obvious who the top brass at the CBC wants in charge, and they don't happen to be orange or blue. Here's the top story on CBC News website right now, another "Analysis" piece. I'm not sure it fits your theory: http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/poll-tracker-liberals-falling-further-behind-ndp-conservative-race-1.3160576 "Analysis Poll Tracker: Liberals falling further behind NDP-Conservative race The Liberals are falling further behind in the latest CBC Poll Tracker update, in a federal race that increasingly puts the focus on the New Democrats and the Conservatives." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonlight Graham Posted July 20, 2015 Report Share Posted July 20, 2015 The top story shouldn't come from the Analysis section. It depends on how opinionated the piece is, IMO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Remiel Posted July 20, 2015 Report Share Posted July 20, 2015 CBC spends a few man hours on an opinion piece and it causes right wingers to gnash their teeth in outrage. Conservatives virtually steal 3B from the Government of Canada and cast at is their own personal largesse and it causes nary a complaint. Maybe you guys should take a look at the shirt Pierre Poilievre was wearing when he was ostensibly acting in his capacity as a minister. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poochy Posted July 20, 2015 Report Share Posted July 20, 2015 the 'analysis' is from the Canadian Press . is there a translator in the house? . Im sorry its beyond you, that must be a common problem for you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poochy Posted July 20, 2015 Report Share Posted July 20, 2015 CBC spends a few man hours on an opinion piece and it causes right wingers to gnash their teeth in outrage. Conservatives virtually steal 3B from the Government of Canada and cast at is their own personal largesse and it causes nary a complaint. Maybe you guys should take a look at the shirt Pierre Poilievre was wearing when he was ostensibly acting in his capacity as a minister. Yawn, if by steal you mean return some of the taxes I paid, then yes you are correct. Nice rant though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Remiel Posted July 20, 2015 Report Share Posted July 20, 2015 You did not pay the taxes being given to you. The childless did. Your attempt at a dodge is pathetic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted July 20, 2015 Author Report Share Posted July 20, 2015 You did not pay the taxes being given to you. The childless did. Your attempt at a dodge is pathetic. People with kids don't pay taxes? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted July 20, 2015 Author Report Share Posted July 20, 2015 It depends on how opinionated the piece is, IMO. I would agree. This one doesn't make the cut imo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan Posted July 20, 2015 Report Share Posted July 20, 2015 You did not pay the taxes being given to you. The childless did. Your attempt at a dodge is pathetic. Horsehockey. I paid my taxes all year, now I get a fraction of that money back. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted July 20, 2015 Author Report Share Posted July 20, 2015 CBC spends a few man hours on an opinion piece.... That was put as the top story and was decidedly anti Conservative. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted July 20, 2015 Report Share Posted July 20, 2015 That was put as the top story and was decidedly anti Conservative. apparently... only pro-Conservative 'stories' fit your model! A link to another "top story analysis" was just put up; one that clearly busts your whining wail where you state: "I think it's pretty obvious who the top brass at the CBC wants in charge, and they don't happen to be orange or blue." Somehow you managed to completely ignore that post, hey! . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted July 20, 2015 Report Share Posted July 20, 2015 I would agree. This one doesn't make the cut imo. and yet... you still haven't managed to state any inaccuracies within the article - go figure! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Remiel Posted July 20, 2015 Report Share Posted July 20, 2015 Okay. So imagine a situation where all taxes were eliminated except for a tax that went to paying a refundable child tax credit. THE PEOPLE PAYING THE TAX CREDIT IN THAT SITUATION ARE THE SAME GOD DAMN PEOPLE PAYING FOR IT NOW!!! SERIOUSLY, HOW IS THIS NOT OBVIOUS!?! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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.