Why am I forced to pay for this social liberalism agenda?

[shoop]

You haven't shown any contradictory statements to justify the term flip flop.

Kinda like the CBC.

Are you saying that was "fair and balanced" reporting by Strombolopolous?

I think you can't see the bias because it fits too neatly with your world view.

So what should we call it?

[Spike22]

The fags are behind it. Social liberalism = fags. More gay programming from the CBC.

[Riverwind]

On phone in shows, the guests are almost always left and nearly all the callers support the guest. It is no acccident.

You do not measure the objectivity of a news program by the biases of the callers.

He also throws complete softball questions at whichever guest he has on.

He is the moderator of the call in show. He is supposed to let his guests express their views.

The callers are also inevitably overwhelmingly lefties.

So what? The fact that callers are center or left means nothing. I have had no problem getting on CBC call in shows to expression right wing perspectives so don't bother suggesting the CBC moderators screen out right wing view points.

Really though, the obvious bias is not the issue. It is pretty much impossible to not have political bias unless non-stop music is the only thing broadcast.

I agree that bias in inevitable. However, public broadcast provides with a perspective that is different from private broadcasters. This increases the amount of information available to us all and benefits society.

However, public broadcasting needs public money and cannot be funded solely by private donations. You know that but don't really care because you want see a Canada where the only opinions you hear are those sanctioned commercial interests that only care about selling useless crap.

[Hollus]

You haven't shown any contradictory statements to justify the term flip flop.

Kinda like the CBC.

Are you saying that was "fair and balanced" reporting by Strombolopolous?

So what should we call it?

Well, if he doesnt think we should be in Iraq now, why did he vote the opposite in 2003?

"Nay."

- Conservative leader Stephen Harper voting against a motion urging the Canadian government not to participate in the US military intervention in Iraq, March 20, 2003.

I'd say this is a pretty contradictory statement: "In my judgment Canada will eventually join with the allied coalition if war on Iraq comes to pass. The government will join, notwithstanding its failure to prepare, its neglect in co-operating with its allies, or its inability to contribute. In the end it will join out of the necessity created by a pattern of uncertainty and indecision. It will not join as a leader but unnoticed at the back of the parade."

- Stephen Harper indicating that, if elected, Canada will join the US occupation of Iraq, Hansard, January 29th 2003.

What about this statement, my understanding of it is that Harper see's the Security Council as our only reason for not participating in the War(a reason which he doesnt seem to aprove of). He doesnt mention anything about our militarys inability to participate.

"This government's only explanation for not standing behind our allies is that they couldn't get the approval of the Security Council at the United Nations - a body [on] which Canada doesn't even have a seat."

- Stephen Harper supporting the American invasion of Iraq, CTV's Question Period, March 30, 2003.

Was Harper not speaking as leader of the opposition when he made this statement during the first month of invasion?:

"Mr. Speaker, the issue of war requires moral leadership. We believe the government should stand by our troops, our friends and our allies and do everything necessary to support them right through to victory."

- Stephen Harper, supporting the American invasion of Iraq, House of Commons, April 1, 2003.

So you could argue that he has'nt directly contradicted himself persay, but then you would have to apply the same arguement to the allegations of PM Martins flip-flops, which I might add the CBC has also documented.

So yes, I'd say its fair and balanced enough.

[shoop]

The issue wasn't to debate how the CBC is biased, just to show that it is.

Your *enough* really says it all. There is no voice from the right on the CBC.

Fair and balanced *enough* for you probably wouldn't be for most Canadians. Given that you are a *little* left of centre...

So yes, I'd say its fair and balanced enough.

[Hollus]

The issue wasn't to debate how the CBC is biased, just to show that it is.

Your *enough* really says it all. There is no voice from the right on the CBC.

Fair and balanced *enough* for you probably wouldn't be for most Canadians. Given that you are a *little* left of centre...

So yes, I'd say its fair and balanced enough.

Whatever shoop. Your ignoring the fact that Harper was in favour of participation in the Iraq war. So how was Strombos flipflop statment so off-base? How was it different from the alligations of flipflops against Martin, which CBC has also made? Where is the unfair treatment in this supposed example of bias that you have put forth?

[shoop]

Because you asked, I provided an example of a left-wing bias from Strombolopolous

Do show an example of even *one* right-wing bias on the part of the CBC.

You get how it would have to be an example of a Martin *flip-flop* on an issue that would make him look bad to the right. Just give the issue, the commentator/show it took place on and an approximate time.

Whatever shoop. Your ignoring the fact that Harper was in favour of participation in the Iraq war. So how was Strombos flipflop statment so off-base? How was it different from the alligations of flipflops against Martin, which CBC has also made? Where is the unfair treatment in this supposed example of bias that you have put forth?

[speaker]

I suspect I'm to the left of centre on some issues and to the right of centre on some. Perhaps the fact that I'm not single dimensional makes it easier for me to see that many of the programs on CBC aren't too biased one way or the other. And yes I used the expression "Too Biased". Of course there is bias, There aren't even comedy shows that don't show bias. The good ones show all sides in a dispute to be somewhat hairbrained. At least the ones that aren't imported from the US. for the most part they are drivel in any direction.

Don't discount RCI so quickly, Canadians in New Orleans were happy to have it during the hurricanes. As well it provides Canadian troops overseas with a very valuable link to home. This part of the service is enough to justify the expenditure of CBC resources, our resources, our tax money all by itself. It doesn't do any good to have such a service if we don't have some programs to put on it. It would hardly be appropriate to simply rebroadcast American Forces Radio to Our soldiers, now would it?

This is just part of the unthinking effort of the ultra right to take everything out of the control of the people and place it in the loving hands of the really big corporations that can then charge us not taxes, god forbid but payments for more commercials which is added to our purchases and over which I would have even less control than I do now.

You want to know how expensive broadcasting can be? Give the other Corps the oligopoly.

[wellandboy]

Was'nt meant as justification, Im trying to understand what part of the programing you have the problem with. How much of the weekly broadcast do you expect to captivate you? Can you provide some examples of other stations that have a high% of programing that apeals to you?

I watch more PBS and TVO than CBC, but in pure news I move between CTV and CBC and Global in a personal attempt to get through the clutter. Sadly, there is more clutter from the CBC when balanced out with The Globe, National Post and my local paper (I subscribe) and the other TV stations.

[wellandboy]

This is just part of the unthinking effort of the ultra right to take everything out of the control of the people and place it in the loving hands of the really big corporations that can then charge us not taxes, god forbid but payments for more commercials which is added to our purchases and over which I would have even less control than I do now.

You want to know how expensive broadcasting can be? Give the other Corps the oligopoly.

"Out of the control of the people". I fail to see the connection between the bureaucrats of the CBC with no accountability and me or you for that matter. Exactly, what control do we as citizens have in determining what the CBC broadcasts. They see the same numbers as the private broadcasters as a measure of performance, yet do little or nothing to improve or change.

Your usage of " ultra right" or "neocon" or whatever flavour of the day doesn't promote any debate on the CBC, just the same old trick of categorizing opposing views with extreme labels. In my posts, I have never stated the the CBC should be abolished, just better, just more accountable.

[Riverwind]

In my posts, I have never stated the the CBC should be abolished, just better, just more accountable.

No you simply insist on a solution that will result in the abolishment of the CBC. The market dynamics in the US are different therefore you cannot apply a US model here no matter how much you would like to.

[wellandboy]

In my posts, I have never stated the the CBC should be abolished, just better, just more accountable.

No you simply insist on a solution that will result in the abolishment of the CBC. The market dynamics in the US are different therefore you cannot apply a US model here no matter how much you would like to.

So what's the answer do nothing, say nothing, accept the status quo. I simply pointed out a different model on which to examine a publicly funded broadcaster based on the rush by others to make make their arguments reflective of the US. This is a Canadian situation or problem depending on which way you look at it, that requires a Canadian solution. If we want to make comparisons we can examine the BBC. Big direct funding, license fees but excellent results. Is there an argument in the other direction towards a BBC model?

[Riverwind]

If we want to make comparisons we can examine the BBC. Big direct funding, license fees but excellent results. Is there an argument in the other direction towards a BBC model?

I would prefer the BBC model myself - a secure funding arrangment and require the CBC to eliminate all advertisements and get out of doing things that the private broadcasters do well enough anyways (i.e. broadcasting sports). However, placing a levy on every television set in this country would likely spark a mass protest so exactly duplicating the BBC model is likely impratical.

I would like to see as much of a competitive marketplace for program development as possible. i.e. have the content developed by indepedent studios but keep the network in place to purchase the best product. The funding for the studios would come from a different agency and they would have the option of selling to the private networks as well. I don't think we can eliminate the TV network itself because I assume the private broadcasters would not accept CanCon rules like we have on radio.

In short, there is lots of ways to improve upon what we have now. The PBS model is likely unworkable but that does not mean we have to accept the status quo.

[Hydraboss]

\" However, placing a levy on every television set in this country would likely spark a mass protest so exactly duplicating the BBC model is likely impratical "/

The billion or so (the amount is unimportant) that the CBC sucks from the public trough is "a levy on every taxpayer in the country." MotherCorp competes unfairly with the private broadcasters by obtaining the "Canadian rights" to broadcasts like HNIC, and then seeking out advertising sponsors.

IF YOU ARE FUNDED BY THE PUBLIC, NO ADVERTISING DOLLARS SHOULD BE ALLOWED. This is unfair competition, just the same as when the Olympics are broadcast...CBC first, the rest of the broadcasters the next day.

NO public funding

...or...

go it alone.

What's next...Al Jezeer? (sp)

[speaker]

I think that it is fairly definite that no matter what broadcasting system we have we pay for it. I would rather pay for it through my taxes than be subject to the incessant noise of commercials. So I agree I will pay more taxes to the CBC if only they will cease and desist with the commercials. Let's see how that flies with their competitors.

[shoop]

Why not turn to the PBS model?

Then those of you who like the CBC and/or would prefer to have no commercials could actually pay for it with pledges.

Those of us who don't, wouldn't have to.

I think that it is fairly definite that no matter what broadcasting system we have we pay for it. I would rather pay for it through my taxes than be subject to the incessant noise of commercials. So I agree I will pay more taxes to the CBC if only they will cease and desist with the commercials. Let's see how that flies with their competitors.

[Riverwind]

Why not turn to the PBS model?

The PBS model will not likely work for the CBC - the market for English programming is just too small.

Are you prepared to accept cuts to programs that you think are important but I don't want but have to pay for? If not then you really can't complain about tax funding going to CBC.

[fellowtraveller]

This is just part of the unthinking effort of the ultra right to take everything out of the control of the people and place it in the loving hands of the really big corporations that can then charge us not taxes, god forbid but payments for more commercials which is added to our purchases and over which I would have even less control than I do now.

Rubbish.

I want to put the CBC directly and completely in the hands of the people that love it greatly- people like you. You can have all the staff, all the equipment, and all the real estate for free, a gift from the taxpayers. All you have to do is put your money where your mouth is, and kick in a hundred or two hundred bucks a year directly to the CBC. Then you can have any kind of programming you like.

I noticed you never answered my question on providing examples or right wing bias on CBC. Do you have any?

[fellowtraveller]

On phone in shows, the guests are almost always left and nearly all the callers support the guest. It is no acccident.

You do not measure the objectivity of a news program by the biases of the callers.

Of course you do. The attitude of the host, guests and callers = the bias. And callins are not exactly 'news' shows, they are more like random op-ed peices, a purported variety/range of opinion

He also throws complete softball questions at whichever guest he has on.

He is the moderator of the call in show. He is supposed to let his guests express their views. He is also supposed to challenge them about the other side of the issue, not just meekly blather on and address only one side. That is Murphys style, the Larry King School of Passive Journalism.

The callers are also inevitably overwhelmingly lefties.

So what? The fact that callers are center or left means nothing. I have had no problem getting on CBC call in shows to expression right wing perspectives so don't bother suggesting the CBC moderators screen out right wing view points. I didn't say that screening callers was the reason that right wing views weren't expressed on CBC- that is your insertion. Likely the reason you don't hear them is that few righties or even centrists are listening. Why? Because there is nothing on CBC for them. Biased, rememeber?

Really though, the obvious bias is not the issue. It is pretty much impossible to not have political bias unless non-stop music is the only thing broadcast.

I agree that bias in inevitable. However, public broadcast provides with a perspective that is different from private broadcasters. This increases the amount of information available to us all and benefits society. You have not explained though, why taxpayers in general should pay for any bias, from any perspective. Are you claiming that it is somehow the role of government to enable the left to speak, and to fund their propaganda exclusively? Would it not be more fair to send $800 million per year and establish a right wing TV and radio network? Or more sensibly and demcratically: to simply state that providing or preventing bias in broadcasting is simply not a role of government.

However, public broadcasting needs public money and cannot be funded solely by private donations. You know that but don't really care because you want see a Canada where the only opinions you hear are those sanctioned commercial interests that only care about selling useless crap.

Explain why it needs 'public money'? Why can't it be funded by public donations? Are you too cheap, and so selfish that you refuse to support it personally and insist that all taxpayers must do so?

I hear diverging opinions every day on the Internet, on this very computer, and I do not ask that you contribute one penny to my news and entertainment sources. I don't see any 'sanctioned commercial interests selling crap ' here, do you? Yet you insist that I pay for your one-dimensional precious network, and challenge my vision of Canada for challenging your selfishness? How classically Liberal.

[shoop]

Depends on the program.

If there is a viable alternative for those programs that aren't heavily subsidized by taxpayers I definitely won't be fighting to keep them around.

The PBS model will not likely work for the CBC - the market for English programming is just too small.

Are you prepared to accept cuts to programs that you think are important but I don't want but have to pay for? If not then you really can't complain about tax funding going to CBC.

[tml12]

Depends on the program.

If there is a viable alternative for those programs that aren't heavily subsidized by taxpayers I definitely won't be fighting to keep them around.

The PBS model will not likely work for the CBC - the market for English programming is just too small.

Are you prepared to accept cuts to programs that you think are important but I don't want but have to pay for? If not then you really can't complain about tax funding going to CBC.

A lot of Canadians talk about how much they love "Corner Gas" and "This Hour Has 22 Minutes."

But would they be willing to join together with other Canadians to pay for these programs???

I tink this is an interesting question indeed...

[Riverwind]

If there is a viable alternative for those programs that aren't heavily subsidized by taxpayers I definitely won't be fighting to keep them around.

That is my point. There is no viable alternative for Canadian programming that does not include a large subsidy by the taxpayer. You can criticize the CBC for getting involved in things it shouldn't like sports, however, it has to do that because it is a compromise between those who value Canadian content and those who would be perfectly happy to see English Canada turn into a clone of the US.

[Riverwind]

A lot of Canadians talk about how much they love "Corner Gas" and "This Hour Has 22 Minutes."

Those shows would not exist if the gov't had not developed a domestic entertainment industry through subsidies. It takes many failures to produce a few successes. Look at it another way: the majority of Silcon Valley startups go bankrupt, but the ones that succeed owe their success to the concentration of expertise and capital in Silcon Valley.

[tml12]

A lot of Canadians talk about how much they love "Corner Gas" and "This Hour Has 22 Minutes."

Those shows would not exist if the gov't had not developed a domestic entertainment industry through subsidies. It takes many failures to produce a few successes. Look at it another way: the majority of Silcon Valley startups go bankrupt, but the ones that succeed owe their success to the concentration of expertise and capital in Silcon Valley.

so you're saying these shows ONLY would exist because of gov't funding???

[Riverwind]

so you're saying these shows ONLY would exist because of gov't funding???

I am saying those shows exists because gov't fund ensures there is a critical mass of talent in Canada that is willing to work on those kinds of shows. Without that critical mass of talent the chances of producing a successful Canadian show would be next to zero.

In otherwords, the government provides the garden but does not plant the seeds.