Zeitgeist Posted March 1 Report Posted March 1 (edited) 6 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said: That's where I stopped reading. The newspaper that is owned by the richest family in Canada, is never that has never not endorsed explicitly the conservative party in federal elections, is not leftist. It is not. As such, trying to lay the blame of a center left politics infecting the CBC is not a point I'm going to strain to see in the rest of your post. The CBC television network just doesn't resonate with people, neither does CBC or Global much either. The big hit Canadian shows came from cable startups, presumably run by young people who could see value in proposals that came to them. This point is obvious to me. The idea that people refuse to watch because they are center left doesn't make sense. Sorry. It’s because your own sensibility is in line with similar ideas. Mine used to be too until about 5 years ago when it became too obvious to ignore just how biased mainstream media has become. The CBC leads the charge. The Globe is no longer a Conservative paper. The National Post is about all we have left for a truly critical mainstream voice, largely thanks to the bravery of Conrad Black, who has taken a ton of criticism over the years. Edited March 1 by Zeitgeist 2 Quote
CdnFox Posted March 1 Report Posted March 1 1 hour ago, Zeitgeist said: It’s because your own sensibility is in line with similar ideas. Mine used to be too until about 5 years ago when it became too obvious to ignore just how biased mainstream media has become. The CBC leads the charge. The Globe is no longer a Conservative paper. The National Post is about all we have left for a truly critical mainstream voice, largely thanks to the bravery of Conrad Black, who has taken a ton of criticism over the years. The CBC has always been a little left leaning but in the last 15 to 20 years or so it has become progressively (ha!) worse. For me I think it really culminated with their attack on Daniel Smith during that election. They plastered their papers with stories how an unnamed source said she broke the law with an email absolutely guaranteed no chance of an error, the government looked into it and hired a third party to verify that it never happened, they came back and said it never happened, and the CBC still dug him and insisted it was absolutely true and she was guilty of a criminal offense without providing a source . Then when the election was over they admitted that the whole thing had been made up, they've never seen an email or had any reason to believe it existed and still refused to name this alleged source that was beyond question. They apologized for their misconduct but the election was over. In short they absolutely lied in order to try and keep a conservative out of power in Alberta because that's what they wanted. And they knew they could get away with it. There is no recovering from that kind of thing. If it was a one-off we could dismiss it as being a couple of rogue journalists and a sorry lack of attention from their editor but there are dozens and dozens of other examples. And that doesn't include the omissions, stories about the liberals that either get no airtime or grossly reduced airtime because they don't flatter their party of choice 2 Quote
Zeitgeist Posted March 1 Report Posted March 1 28 minutes ago, CdnFox said: The CBC has always been a little left leaning but in the last 15 to 20 years or so it has become progressively (ha!) worse. For me I think it really culminated with their attack on Daniel Smith during that election. They plastered their papers with stories how an unnamed source said she broke the law with an email absolutely guaranteed no chance of an error, the government looked into it and hired a third party to verify that it never happened, they came back and said it never happened, and the CBC still dug him and insisted it was absolutely true and she was guilty of a criminal offense without providing a source . Then when the election was over they admitted that the whole thing had been made up, they've never seen an email or had any reason to believe it existed and still refused to name this alleged source that was beyond question. They apologized for their misconduct but the election was over. In short they absolutely lied in order to try and keep a conservative out of power in Alberta because that's what they wanted. And they knew they could get away with it. There is no recovering from that kind of thing. If it was a one-off we could dismiss it as being a couple of rogue journalists and a sorry lack of attention from their editor but there are dozens and dozens of other examples. And that doesn't include the omissions, stories about the liberals that either get no airtime or grossly reduced airtime because they don't flatter their party of choice Yes and the CBC has become the propaganda arm of activist causes that don’t align with what most Canadians would consider fair. I thought that the attack on Buffy Saint Marie was another example of cancellation by presumption. Someone who brought attention to Indigenous cultures and mistreatment was deemed a pretendian and publicly ruined. All on the basis of some contestable accounts and opinions. How many others has the CBC destroyed? It’s more than Don Cherry. 2 Quote
CouchPotato Posted March 1 Report Posted March 1 (edited) One of the narratives I see from the CBC lately (and others) that I find kind of comical is this one about how Pierre Poilievre is pivoting on his message. It's very ironic, because even though Pierre has to change campaign tactics somewhat, it's quite literally the Liberals who are doing the full 180s on policies themselves. Why is it a news story that Pierre Poilievre might have to change messaging from this simply being a carbon tax election when it is the Liberals who have actually changed (or are pretending to change) their position on it? Edited March 1 by CouchPotato 3 Quote
CdnFox Posted March 1 Report Posted March 1 39 minutes ago, CouchPotato said: One of the narratives I see from the CBC lately (and others) that I find kind of comical is this one about how Pierre Poilievre is pivoting on his message. It's very ironic, because even though Pierre has to change campaign tactics somewhat, it's quite literally the Liberals who are doing the full 180s on policies themselves. Why is it a news story that Pierre Poilievre might have to change messaging from this simply being a carbon tax election when it is the Liberals who have actually changed (or are pretending to change) their position on it? Pierre barely has to change it all. Sure he was playing the whole carbon tax election thing which I said at the time was kind of stupid because it boxes you in but if you listen to any of his speeches from last year and then listen to the one he gave on flag day his message is basically identical and always has been. A year and a half ago he was calling for the need to move our economy away from being reliant on America's. A year and a half ago he was talking about the need to deal with crime and drug issues. A year and a half ago he was talking about our military and the need to bring it back to life. He's been talking about our competitiveness and GDP per capita ratio for years now All the things that are suddenly exciting to the liberals he's been talking about. he really doesn't need to change his messaging one little bit, his slogan might change but that's about it the rest of it was perfect as it was 1 Quote
CouchPotato Posted March 1 Report Posted March 1 (edited) 4 hours ago, CdnFox said: The CBC has always been a little left leaning but in the last 15 to 20 years or so it has become progressively (ha!) worse. One thing they do deserve credit for is at least they have been more calculating about how they do it than left wing media south of the border. It's still quite obvious, but it's less sensational than how MSNBC would try to smear Republicans. Some people might say it was Trump himself that trolled them into behaving that way, but it was going on back when Romney and Ryan were gonna throw grandma off a cliff. The CBC is at least is more subtle. Rather than non-stop sensational claims, they will run stories that are more suggestive of nefarious things. They might suggest Pierre is connected to Diagolon because he shook someone's hand. Or suggest that he is taking a page out of Trump's playbook. It's often speculative. No real evidence to accuse him of anything, but also they don't make outright accusations. They just do enough to build the association in your mind. Edited March 1 by CouchPotato 1 Quote
eyeball Posted March 2 Report Posted March 2 3 hours ago, CouchPotato said: Why is it a news story that Pierre Poilievre might have to change messaging from this simply being a carbon tax election when it is the Liberals who have actually changed (or are pretending to change) their position on it? What I'd like to know is if PP truly gives a damn about climate change. I don't think he does myself but he needs to virtue signal that he does which is why he's mentioned carbon capture and storage - the same thing Carney is talking about. They're both full of shit for the same reason AFAIC. CCS is less effective than the existing carbon tax, it will cost Canadians more due to subsidies and oil companies will still pass the cost on to consumers and of course there won't be a rebate. What's hilarious is that PPs supporters who know this (Scott Moe for example) will hold their noses ignore the virtue signalling and vote for it anyway. 1 Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
CdnFox Posted March 2 Report Posted March 2 3 hours ago, eyeball said: What I'd like to know is if PP truly gives a damn about climate change. I Well you've been told this and you just don't listen. Which means you don't like to know you just like to virtue signal and spread misinformation poilievre cares about climate change. He does not believe anything that we can do here in Canada will substantially alter it directly. We don't pollute enough. He has talked about investing in scientific solutions because not only can we use them here but they could be used around the world in places that do make enough pollution to make a difference. Things like nuclear power for example, which he'd like to see canada perfect and sell globally. He also believes that until there's a transition it would be better if canada and the world used cleaner canadian products for oil and gas rather than dictator driven products that fund wars and have no oversight. And both of those things would also mean improving our economy rather than destroying it with virtue signal and carbon taxes that do nothing but make us poor Now quit pretending you don't know. Quote
eyeball Posted March 2 Report Posted March 2 6 minutes ago, CdnFox said: poilievre cares about climate change If he's that woke then please explain to me how any self-respecting hard-boiled chud could possibly vote for him? 1 Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
CdnFox Posted March 2 Report Posted March 2 16 minutes ago, eyeball said: If he's that woke then please explain to me how any self-respecting hard-boiled chud could possibly vote for him? then can't. Which is why you're not Everyone else is tho. ( you really do walk right into these things. ) Quote
PIK Posted March 2 Report Posted March 2 PP giving speech. CBC gives him split screen with no sound. LOL Quote Toronto, like a roach motel in the middle of a pretty living room.
Moonbox Posted March 2 Report Posted March 2 On 3/1/2025 at 6:18 AM, Michael Hardner said: The last paragraph, I'm not sure of. Harper tried to fix it, and they ended up with with some changes happening. The toughest not to crack, being CBC English television, came close to producing some hits. I think most of us would like for that to happen. What part aren't you sure of? Harper was the target of a lot of CBC's rhetoric and bias, which already was deeply entrenched. What changes he made were budget cuts and some half-hearted attempt to bring it into the 21st century, amidst a lot of minority governments. Needless to say, this went over like a bag of bricks with the CBC, who tilted even further towards the Liberals. There's a parasitic feedback-loop between the CBC and the Liberal Party, the former providing friendly coverage for the latter, who in turn hand-pick its leadership and maintain the protective bubble around them. That's an asinine organizational dynamic - flawed at its most fundamental level. Other, better, public broadcasters (like in the UK, South Korea, Australia etc) benefit from arm's length oversight and leadership. The CBC's organizational structure is more akin to a rinky-dink banana republic's. Quote "A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he does for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous
Michael Hardner Posted March 2 Report Posted March 2 2 hours ago, Moonbox said: What part aren't you sure of? Harper was the target of a lot of CBC's rhetoric and bias, which already was deeply entrenched. What changes he made were budget cuts and some half-hearted attempt to bring it into the 21st century, amidst a lot of minority governments. Needless to say, this went over like a bag of bricks with the CBC, who tilted even further towards the Liberals. There's a parasitic feedback-loop between the CBC and the Liberal Party, the former providing friendly coverage for the latter, who in turn hand-pick its leadership and maintain the protective bubble around them. That's an asinine organizational dynamic - flawed at its most fundamental level. Other, better, public broadcasters (like in the UK, South Korea, Australia etc) benefit from arm's length oversight and leadership. The CBC's organizational structure is more akin to a rinky-dink banana republic's. I'm not sure that it's wielded as a political tool for anyone's benefit. You seem sane, so I would accept any evidence you have... But they don't seem capable of anything like that. And any insight into the management structure would also be informative. It seems to me I asked a similar question long ago with someone and they came back with talking about Marxism. Something about the globe and Mail being a leftist organization etc. 1 Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
eyeball Posted March 2 Report Posted March 2 25 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said: You seem sane, so I would accept any evidence you have... I agree there could be a more arms length distance or greater scrutiny of the process when the PMO picks and appoints directors and CEO's of our crown corporations but that sort of transparency is a different topic. In the meantime without the physical link/interface between the PMO and the CBC editorial board - e-mail trails, phone records, W5 expose - it is difficult to conclude this animosity towards the CBC isn't just born from a grievance against inconvenient information in general or worse informed by the sort of conspiracies that characterize Crazyville. 1 Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
Michael Hardner Posted March 2 Report Posted March 2 25 minutes ago, eyeball said: I agree there could be a more arms length distance or greater scrutiny of the process when the PMO picks and appoints directors and CEO's of our crown corporations but that sort of transparency is a different topic. In the meantime without the physical link/interface between the PMO and the CBC editorial board - e-mail trails, phone records, W5 expose - it is difficult to conclude this animosity towards the CBC isn't just born from a grievance against inconvenient information in general or worse informed by the sort of conspiracies that characterize Crazyville. I'm zero and one in trying to get to the bottom of it, this year anyway. Honestly, I don't care if it's patronage or if it's glad-handing... If they deliver a good product for Value then I am in. Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
eyeball Posted March 3 Report Posted March 3 2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said: I'm zero and one in trying to get to the bottom of it, this year anyway. Honestly, I don't care if it's patronage or if it's glad-handing... If they deliver a good product for Value then I am in. I'm in for a a couple reasons, one is that for me the CBC is like a touch stone - it's made the relative merits of the concept of being Canadian obvious. Growing up watching CBC on our black and white rabbit-eared TV, listening to a crackling CBC signal late at night drifting far offshore after a days fishing or stoking the fire by oil lamp in a cabin in the middle of boonies the CBC just made it better. But there's nostalgia and then there's practicality. I see an important role and value in having a well funded public broadcaster to provide a public owned perspective as opposed to a corporate owned and dominated media. A publicly owned source of information is an entirely appropriate counterweight to that. And finally, if there was ever a calamitous event that cut Canadians off from one another a public broadcaster would probably make recovering from it easier. 3 Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
Army Guy Posted March 3 Report Posted March 3 On 3/1/2025 at 8:31 PM, eyeball said: What I'd like to know is if PP truly gives a damn about climate change. I don't think he does myself but he needs to virtue signal that he does which is why he's mentioned carbon capture and storage - the same thing Carney is talking about. They're both full of shit for the same reason AFAIC. CCS is less effective than the existing carbon tax, it will cost Canadians more due to subsidies and oil companies will still pass the cost on to consumers and of course there won't be a rebate. What's hilarious is that PPs supporters who know this (Scott Moe for example) will hold their noses ignore the virtue signalling and vote for it anyway. Bullcrap, PP has talked about green initiatives for as long as i can remember you just weren't listening...things like building more nuclear power supplies via traditionally nuke power stations and SMR's, by bring our natural gas to market so other nations and our own can transition off coal, he also talks about using advanced tech to allow us to carbon capture, or allow us to use CO2 as a fuel source in itself...Imagine powering all those northern communities by SMR rather than fossil fuels flown or shipped in.... Wanting to be a AI leader buy building huge AI plants which require huge amounts of power, Clean power... Carney has lied to Canadians about his climate plan, by taxing those high end manufactures and then telling people the manufactures will absurd those cost and not pass it on to the consumers...like when has that ever happened....he has lied about many topics, he is like justin now you can't tell the truth from the lies... Canadians don't really care about climate change , sure they talk a good game, but when forced to pay anything it is game over...78 % of canadians want to remove the carbon tax...liberal, and conservative...so lets not pretend this is all a conservative thing, even the liberals running for party leadership have reversed their directions on it, because it is not popular ...had nothing to do with it may of been working... Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
Army Guy Posted March 3 Report Posted March 3 5 hours ago, eyeball said: I agree there could be a more arms length distance or greater scrutiny of the process when the PMO picks and appoints directors and CEO's of our crown corporations but that sort of transparency is a different topic. In the meantime without the physical link/interface between the PMO and the CBC editorial board - e-mail trails, phone records, W5 expose - it is difficult to conclude this animosity towards the CBC isn't just born from a grievance against inconvenient information in general or worse informed by the sort of conspiracies that characterize Crazyville. PP does not want to shut down CBC, just defund it...and when it is laying off employees and then giving out big execs bonuses, which may or may not be taxpayer funded, thats where i draw the line...Like any media group they should be able to stand on their own feet, if not cut staff or services until it can...it is what every other business does in this country does...they thrive or disappear.... 1 Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
CdnFox Posted March 3 Report Posted March 3 2 hours ago, Army Guy said: Bullcrap, PP has talked about green initiatives for as long as i can remember you just weren't listening...things like building more nuclear power supplies via traditionally nuke power stations and SMR's, by bring our natural gas to market so other nations and our own can transition off coal, he also talks about using advanced tech to allow us to carbon capture, or allow us to use CO2 as a fuel source in itself...Imagine powering all those northern communities by SMR rather than fossil fuels flown or shipped in.... Those things are only green if liberals decide to do them. Until then the only green thing that is green in the entire world is carbon tax 1 Quote
Zeitgeist Posted March 3 Report Posted March 3 4 hours ago, eyeball said: I'm in for a a couple reasons, one is that for me the CBC is like a touch stone - it's made the relative merits of the concept of being Canadian obvious. Growing up watching CBC on our black and white rabbit-eared TV, listening to a crackling CBC signal late at night drifting far offshore after a days fishing or stoking the fire by oil lamp in a cabin in the middle of boonies the CBC just made it better. But there's nostalgia and then there's practicality. I see an important role and value in having a well funded public broadcaster to provide a public owned perspective as opposed to a corporate owned and dominated media. A publicly owned source of information is an entirely appropriate counterweight to that. And finally, if there was ever a calamitous event that cut Canadians off from one another a public broadcaster would probably make recovering from it easier. You’re not wrong. The CBC really can be that voice of civilization in the wilderness. I love the music on CBC radio generally, and there are good cultural pieces on it. I’m not for losing the CBC, but it needs to drop the woke shit. 1 Quote
CdnFox Posted March 3 Report Posted March 3 1 hour ago, Zeitgeist said: You’re not wrong. The CBC really can be that voice of civilization in the wilderness. I love the music on CBC radio generally, and there are good cultural pieces on it. I’m not for losing the CBC, but it needs to drop the woke shit. If you like it and you're willing to pay for it and others feel the same way then they can still provide services. It just won't be able to provide them with a government handout Quote
eyeball Posted March 3 Report Posted March 3 13 hours ago, Army Guy said: Bullcrap, PP has talked about green initiatives for as long as i can remember you just weren't listening.. I'm aware of it. I've had to post links to him myself when pointing out his concern to deniers. The reason I don't believe him is because of the numbers of his supporters I've talked to who simply don't give a shit. 13 hours ago, Army Guy said: Carney has lied to Canadians about his climate plan, by taxing those high end manufactures and then telling people the manufactures will absurd those cost and not pass it on to the consumers...like when has that ever happened... Pretty much if he's implying his plan is a good alternative to the existing tax. What makes people think the same costs won't be passed on to us under PP's plan? 13 hours ago, Army Guy said: Canadians don't really care about climate change Millions of ordinary Canadians care. You cared but you gave up. It looks like you gave up giving a shit about virtue signalling too. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
eyeball Posted March 3 Report Posted March 3 13 hours ago, Army Guy said: PP does not want to shut down CBC, just defund it...and when it is laying off employees and then giving out big execs bonuses, which may or may not be taxpayer funded, thats where i draw the line...Like any media group they should be able to stand on their own feet, if not cut staff or services until it can...it is what every other business does in this country does...they thrive or disappear.... Hey, you know full well I have little regard for the lack of transparency at the level that CEO's and Cabinet Ministers exist. That's an entirely different topic however. If it's come to the point the only way to address this is to shut down our institutions then so be it I guess. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
WestCanMan Posted March 3 Author Report Posted March 3 On 3/1/2025 at 9:23 AM, CdnFox said: For me I think it really culminated with their attack on Daniel Smith during that election. They plastered their papers with stories how an unnamed source said she broke the law with an email absolutely guaranteed no chance of an error, the government looked into it and hired a third party to verify that it never happened, they came back and said it never happened, and the CBC still dug him and insisted it was absolutely true and she was guilty of a criminal offense without providing a source . Then when the election was over they admitted that the whole thing had been made up, they've never seen an email or had any reason to believe it existed and still refused to name this alleged source that was beyond question. They apologized for their misconduct but the election was over. In short they absolutely lied in order to try and keep a conservative out of power in Alberta because that's what they wanted. And they knew they could get away with it. And they did more to keep Trudeau's laundry-list of actual scandals out of the news than they did to create a fake scandal for Danielle Smith. It's sad to see our democracy backslide to the point of having state-run media openly influencing elections to that extent and it just seems like business as usual. 1 Quote If CNN gave an infinite number of monkeys an infinite number of typewriters, leftists would believe everything they typed. If you missed something on the Cultist Narrative Network, don't worry, the dolt horde here will make sure everyone hears it. "If it didn't come from CNN, it's heresy!" - leftist "intellectuals"
eyeball Posted March 3 Report Posted March 3 10 hours ago, Zeitgeist said: I’m not for losing the CBC, but it needs to drop the woke shit. Drop social justice? Like I said the CBC made the relative merits of the concept of being Canadian obvious, and AFAIC social justice is very near the top of a list of these merits. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
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.