CdnFox Posted April 18, 2023 Author Report Share Posted April 18, 2023 27 minutes ago, Aristides said: The Broadcasting Act stipulates that government cannot interfere with CBC editorial independence. There is no such restriction on private broadcasting. There's no such restriction with the gov't when it's the liberals. All they have to do to 'interfere' is call up their contacts at the cbc and have a chat. It's only when the CPC is in power that its' called interference and they hang up the phone. And at the end of the day the private media answers to the customers. if they don't like their crap, then the paper goes out of business. But the cbc keeps afloat from gov't funds. So the restrictions on the CBC are far less Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aristides Posted April 18, 2023 Report Share Posted April 18, 2023 1 minute ago, Nationalist said: No its not the question. Try reading the OP. I did read the OP. Your whole premise is that government funding must be flagged because of bias, yet bias because of private funding is not worth mentioning. No wonder people are so easily manipulated. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CdnFox Posted April 18, 2023 Author Report Share Posted April 18, 2023 1 hour ago, Aristides said: Which does? The CBC's editorial independence is guaranteed by the Broadcasting Act. No, its not. It only means the gov't can't officially interfere against the Cbc's will. But - in fact the liberals interfere all the time, day and night. As long as the CBC are willing stooges it's fine. And perfectly legal. And they are. And that's a problem when they're publicly funded. Unless they're planning on giving conservatives a rebate Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CdnFox Posted April 18, 2023 Author Report Share Posted April 18, 2023 3 minutes ago, Aristides said: I did read the OP. Your whole premise is that government funding must be flagged because of bias, yet bias because of private funding is not worth mentioning. No wonder people are so easily manipulated. Aristtides - it's a DUMB argument! If I think fox news is bias i don't have to buy their product. But if a GOV"T FUNDED news agency is bias then they are accountable to nobody! So it's important to know that if you're looking at their stories - they will never be held to account just as the cbc is not being held to account, but in the meantime everyone knows and can quickly discover that fox and cnn are bias! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted April 18, 2023 Report Share Posted April 18, 2023 3 minutes ago, CdnFox said: Doesn't matter - if it doesn't come from the gov't then the market sources pay for it and will sort it out. You're saying market forces will pay for the control? That's retarded. It's like saying the CBC's can supercede the Broadcasting Act at will - which you also just said. 4 minutes ago, CdnFox said: No, its not. It only means the gov't can't officially interfere against the Cbc's will. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nationalist Posted April 18, 2023 Report Share Posted April 18, 2023 19 minutes ago, Aristides said: I did read the OP. Your whole premise is that government funding must be flagged because of bias, yet bias because of private funding is not worth mentioning. No wonder people are so easily manipulated. Like...you...for instance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
herbie Posted April 18, 2023 Report Share Posted April 18, 2023 Yes, only media owned by billionaires delivers the truth. CBC, BBC, ABC, NPR, PBS are all lies, right? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted April 18, 2023 Report Share Posted April 18, 2023 7 minutes ago, Nationalist said: Like...you...for instance. So what you're arguing is that funding equals control and bias is propaganda. And why should all this be left up to the private sector, presumably unregulated, to provide again? Efficiency or something? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CdnFox Posted April 18, 2023 Author Report Share Posted April 18, 2023 26 minutes ago, eyeball said: You're saying market forces will pay for the control? Market forces are teh control. 26 minutes ago, eyeball said: That's retarded. Only to retarded people 26 minutes ago, eyeball said: It's like saying the CBC's can supercede the Broadcasting Act at will - which you also just said. Of course it can. Can you show me where they're not allowed to collude with the gov't? It doesn't say the gov't can't do that. Of couse being illiterate you woudn't have read it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nationalist Posted April 18, 2023 Report Share Posted April 18, 2023 6 minutes ago, eyeball said: So what you're arguing is that funding equals control and bias is propaganda. And why should all this be left up to the private sector, presumably unregulated, to provide again? Efficiency or something? No I'm not. I'm saying that the government funding CBC warrants the tag Twitter put on the CBC tweets. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legato Posted April 18, 2023 Report Share Posted April 18, 2023 53 minutes ago, herbie said: Yes, only media owned by billionaires delivers the truth. CBC, BBC, ABC, NPR, PBS are all lies, right? Yes. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExFlyer Posted April 18, 2023 Report Share Posted April 18, 2023 (edited) 1 hour ago, CdnFox said: There is a big difference between 'recieved some gov't funds' and 'govt funded.' A paper that recieves a few bucks here and there but primarily survives on it's own revenues is not really 'govt' funded' . It's private revenue funded. If it stopped getting any gov't money it would continue. Meanwhile an org that's SEVENTY percent gov't funded is funded by the gov't. Period. If that funding goes away so does that org unless it becomes something ENTIRELY different. In other words - is the org dependent on it's money for survival? If so - gov't funded. I think pbs etc has a case that they shouldn't be called gov't funded - but cbc? no way in hell. That is a gov't funded org. Getting and using government money is the same, funded by government money to stay alive. In Canada all newspapers received hundreds of millions of dollars. ($600 milion +) "Founded in 1941, CBC News is Canada's publicly owned news and information service" It was developed and maintained and intended as such. It has since become an "agency" like Canada Post. Nothing new, unfounded, unknown or even newsworthy about that. Edited April 18, 2023 by ExFlyer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aristides Posted April 18, 2023 Report Share Posted April 18, 2023 (edited) 1 hour ago, CdnFox said: Aristtides - it's a DUMB argument! If I think fox news is bias i don't have to buy their product. But if a GOV"T FUNDED news agency is bias then they are accountable to nobody! So it's important to know that if you're looking at their stories - they will never be held to account just as the cbc is not being held to account, but in the meantime everyone knows and can quickly discover that fox and cnn are bias! How do people discover that FOX and CNN are bias? Who is paying for their bias and what is their agenda? Who are they accountable to other than an audience. We have already seen FOX lie like bandits so as not to offend their audience. Edited April 18, 2023 by Aristides 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted April 18, 2023 Report Share Posted April 18, 2023 33 minutes ago, Aristides said: FOX lie like bandits so as not to offend their audience. They made a PILLOW SALESMAN who advertised with them as a political analyst ! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I am Groot Posted April 18, 2023 Report Share Posted April 18, 2023 22 hours ago, CdnFox said: As someone who's had to deal with this many times in court, i can tell you that is not exhaustive in the slighetst. Courts have and do demand reinstatement of positions, and/or demand payouts of wages vastly in excess of what the required minimum is by law. The issues will be things like how easy it is to get another similar job, if they feel there was any discrimination involved. etc. The issue would also be if this was part of the institution moving in a new direction. Which is what would be needed. As well, many positions could simply be made redundant as there is an awful lot of deadwood and bureaucracy there. 22 hours ago, CdnFox said: I mean that was doug ford's plan too right, with hydro 1. He got in and tried and got slaughered. it just doesn't work that way. Doug Ford has no balls or spine. The media made a fuss and he backed down and ran away. He's hardly the right example. Someone like Mike Harris would do it in a second. In fact, Mike Harris would already have slashed the size of the bloated Ontario public sector by thousands of jobs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I am Groot Posted April 18, 2023 Report Share Posted April 18, 2023 3 hours ago, Aristides said: The Broadcasting Act stipulates that government cannot interfere with CBC editorial independence. There is no such restriction on private broadcasting. The government appoints all sorts of boards that are technically 'independent' but not really. They simply make sure to appoint their friends and allies to the position. Much like Trudeau and his 'independent' rapporteur'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aristides Posted April 18, 2023 Report Share Posted April 18, 2023 4 minutes ago, I am Groot said: The government appoints all sorts of boards that are technically 'independent' but not really. They simply make sure to appoint their friends and allies to the position. Much like Trudeau and his 'independent' rapporteur'. The act prevents government interference, the CBC editorial staff can tell the government and its board to pound sand if they try and interfere. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aristides Posted April 18, 2023 Report Share Posted April 18, 2023 The practice of only flagging sources with government funding is that they are suspect but everything else is not. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CdnFox Posted April 18, 2023 Author Report Share Posted April 18, 2023 9 minutes ago, I am Groot said: The issue would also be if this was part of the institution moving in a new direction. Which is what would be needed. As well, many positions could simply be made redundant as there is an awful lot of deadwood and bureaucracy there. there are very strict rules around all of that. Fire a writer because you're going in a new direction and you have to hire that one back or nobody for the next year or two. It's just not a real thing. Especially not with a union. 9 minutes ago, I am Groot said: Doug Ford has no balls or spine. The media made a fuss and he backed down and ran away. I'm sure you think that's how it went. But there were other problems. I followed that closely because i was interested to see if he could get away with it.' Nope. 9 minutes ago, I am Groot said: He's hardly the right example. Someone like Mike Harris would do it in a second. In fact, Mike Harris would already have slashed the size of the bloated Ontario public sector by thousands of jobs. So mike harris would have just defunded them and been done with it. Not tried to fix it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted April 18, 2023 Report Share Posted April 18, 2023 2 hours ago, Nationalist said: No I'm not. I'm saying that the government funding CBC warrants the tag Twitter put on the CBC tweets. Oh okay. Again, so what? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted April 18, 2023 Report Share Posted April 18, 2023 1 hour ago, I am Groot said: The government appoints all sorts of boards that are technically 'independent' but not really. They simply make sure to appoint their friends and allies to the position. Much like Trudeau and his 'independent' rapporteur'. I've been watching stories about this sort of thing on CBC for years now and the thrust of this thread is that CBC is hiding these sorts of stories. What am I missing here again? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CdnFox Posted April 18, 2023 Author Report Share Posted April 18, 2023 1 hour ago, eyeball said: I've been watching stories about this sort of thing on CBC for years now and the thrust of this thread is that CBC is hiding these sorts of stories. What am I missing here again? Well - name 3 of those stories and we can look at it. Which of these stories have you been seeing on cbc? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted April 18, 2023 Report Share Posted April 18, 2023 1 hour ago, CdnFox said: Well - name 3 of those stories and we can look at it. Which of these stories have you been seeing on cbc? Sponsorship Scandal https://www.cbc.ca/news2/background/groupaction/gomeryreport_phaseone.html SNC Lavalin https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-wilson-raybould-attorney-general-snc-lavalin-1.5014271 We Charity Scandal https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/we-charity-student-grant-justin-trudeau-testimony-1.5666676 CBC did not hide these stories from the public's view and the government didn't yank, claw back or penalize CBC financially for reporting them. I'm not aware of any reporters being silenced or disappeared for reporting them are you? I've asked before if you people think its the other way around and the media controls the government but there's no straight answer to be found that way either. It always seems to depend on which corner you're trying to back yourself out of at the time. It is what it is. 1 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CdnFox Posted April 18, 2023 Author Report Share Posted April 18, 2023 5 minutes ago, eyeball said: Sponsorship Scandal https://www.cbc.ca/news2/background/groupaction/gomeryreport_phaseone.html Well that had nothing whatsoever to do with a board of directors being technically independant but not really. That's a story about the sponsorship scandal. I mean - it's a story about liberal corruption but it's got nothing to do with the specific subject. So swing and a miss there. Lets just rehash what we're talking about - quote: The government appoints all sorts of boards that are technically 'independent' but not really. That's what you said you had been hearing stories about. 5 minutes ago, eyeball said: SNC Lavalin https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-wilson-raybould-attorney-general-snc-lavalin-1.5014271 Again - the claim was you'd been hearing stories about boards that are independant but not. SNC is a story about liberals be ing scumbags but - not what we're talking about. 5 minutes ago, eyeball said: We Charity Scandal https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/we-charity-student-grant-justin-trudeau-testimony-1.5666676 Third strike, yer out So you couldn't come up with even ONE example? Not one? These are just stories about liberal corruption. 5 minutes ago, eyeball said: CBC did not hide these stories from the public's view and the government didn't yank, claw back or penalize CBC financially for reporting them. I'm not aware of any reporters being silenced or disappeared for reporting them are you? No need - the stories were out there so the cbc couldn't bury them but - in each case they downplayed the story and softened it. And they've been critisized for that quite a bit. This is a different subject than what we were talking about. But - it's still worth noting. The CBC Severely down plays stories which are offensive to the liberals and downplays stories that are pro conservative, and hypes liberal positive stories and conservative negative stories. Agian - not what you said, but still interesting, sure. 5 minutes ago, eyeball said: I've asked before if you people think its the other way around and the media controls the government but there's no straight answer to be found that way either. The media doesn't control the gov't. But it can absolutely impact it. By whitewashing the bad and highlighting the good they can certainly impact public impression. For example - the lie the cbc told relentlessly and aggressively during the trucker protest about the american funding helped set public opinion against the truckers and support trudeau's treatment of them. Likewise the cbc's lie about the 'emails' that we now know didn't happen between steel and the justice department can have a major impact. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted April 18, 2023 Report Share Posted April 18, 2023 16 minutes ago, eyeball said: It always seems to depend on which corner you're trying to back yourself out of at the time. It is what it is. They used to say that The Globe and Global TV were team Trudeau. When I asked why Global TV or The Globe BROKE STORIES that did him real damage they said that they had no choice. No choice to break a story.... It's all conspiracy conspiracy conspiracy with these crackpots I tells ya... 1 1 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.