That's it! I've had enough!

[newbie]

August, how would you describe this movie? I think the writer did an excellent job in setting it up for the viewer. But each must decide for themselves the merit of Michael Moore's film making. Is the promo biased? Not in my opinion.

[geoffrey]

August, how would you describe this movie? I think the writer did an excellent job in setting it up for the viewer. But each must decide for themselves the merit of Michael Moore's film making. Is the promo biased? Not in my opinion.

I'd describe it like this:

A political inspired rant by politically partisan attack dog Michael Moore is an all out attack on any type of lifestyle that doesn't agree with his own. Brilliant portrayed ignorance of reality, and ignorance of facts, is sure to entertain your Democrat urbanite family for hours! If you hate people that aren't the same as you, watch this movie, as it will give you so many misleading, out of context clips of interview that your head will be spinning in awe of his arrogance!

4 piles of B.S. out of 5!

--

I'll read dissenting points of view, I'll watch dissenting points of view on TV and in movies. I will not deal with Michael Moore, he has no ethical standards and is a blatant fear mongerer.

[Riverwind]

I'd describe it like this:...

But you don't care if people watch the movie and the revenue generating advertisements that go with it. The CBC did go overboard with that particular promo but you must remember the key objective: maximize ad ratings and ad revenue which can then be used to fund CanCon programming.

[Renegade]

Is this blurb biased?

BOWLING FOR COLUMBINE is a tour-de-force from award-winning Michael Moore and the result is a stunningly brave piece of work. As his country’s leading satirist and social documentarian, Moore, in this groundbreaking film, boldly asks a question that most Americans dare not ask in these wildly patriotic times, “Are we a nation of gun nuts — or are we just nuts?”

CBC

Of course the blurb is biased. But the CBC didn't invent it. They just cut-n-pasted it from Alliance Atlantic (the distributor's) press release. link

[August1991]

Is this blurb biased?

BOWLING FOR COLUMBINE is a tour-de-force from award-winning Michael Moore and the result is a stunningly brave piece of work. As his country’s leading satirist and social documentarian, Moore, in this groundbreaking film, boldly asks a question that most Americans dare not ask in these wildly patriotic times, “Are we a nation of gun nuts — or are we just nuts?”

CBC

Of course the blurb is biased. But the CBC didn't invent it. They just cut-n-pasted it from Alliance Atlantic (the distributor's) press release. link

Fair enough. Good find, renegade.

[gerryhatrick]

Nobody cares if you've "had enough".

You're welcome to watch and listen to something else.

[newbie]

August, how would you describe this movie? I think the writer did an excellent job in setting it up for the viewer. But each must decide for themselves the merit of Michael Moore's film making. Is the promo biased? Not in my opinion.

I'd describe it like this:

A political inspired rant by politically partisan attack dog Michael Moore is an all out attack on any type of lifestyle that doesn't agree with his own. Brilliant portrayed ignorance of reality, and ignorance of facts, is sure to entertain your Democrat urbanite family for hours! If you hate people that aren't the same as you, watch this movie, as it will give you so many misleading, out of context clips of interview that your head will be spinning in awe of his arrogance!

4 piles of B.S. out of 5!

--nd in movies. I will not deal with Michael Moore, he has no ethical standards and is a blatant fear mongerer.

Certainly no bias there.

[lost&outofcontrol]

-One in 6 Canadians vote for an party whose leader is on the record as saying that he prefers to be called a socialist, rather than a social democrat. Indeed, if you throw out Quebec, about 1 in 5 Canadians vote for the NDP. In the USA, these clowns would be a fringe lunatic party.

Why are they lunatics? Is it because they have a different opinion than yours/U.S.? "Thankfully", the US is a two party system so for the people who may not agree with one of the two parties' policies, they are up the creek.

[Montgomery Burns]

Nobody cares if you've "had enough".

You're welcome to watch and listen to something else.

I do listen and watch something else. What I resent is being forced to pay $60/year to fund Canada's Pravda.

I'd rather take out Kelly for a nice dinner or buy her a nice piece of naughty lingerie - strictly for her benefit, of course.

[newbie]

Nobody cares if you've "had enough".

You're welcome to watch and listen to something else.

I do listen and watch something else. What I resent is being forced to pay $60/year to fund Canada's Pravda.

Aah, come on Monty. Where else can you get such quality programming for mere pennies a day.

[gerryhatrick]

Nobody cares if you've "had enough".

You're welcome to watch and listen to something else.

I do listen and watch something else. What I resent is being forced to pay $60/year to fund Canada's Pravda.

Too bloody bad. We all pay for things we don't use. Stop paying taxes or quit your whining.

The partisan accusations against the CBC are old and tired. It was the CBC that gave me constant factual damning play-by-play of the sponsorship scandal as it unfolded.

The lack of bias at the CBC is what rankles you and every other rightwinger unable to see the world through an objective scope.

[Canuck E Stan]

Too bloody bad. We all pay for things we don't use. Stop paying taxes or quit your whining.

The partisan accusations against the CBC are old and tired. It was the CBC that gave me constant factual damning play-by-play of the sponsorship scandal as it unfolded.

The lack of bias at the CBC is what rankles you and every other rightwinger unable to see the world through an objective scope.

$982,400,000 was spent by taxpayers to keep CBC alive in 2005

$1,000,000,000 was spent by taxpayers to keep CBC alive in 2004

Worse sucking of tax dollars than the gun registry, and for what?

There are media alternatives that DO NOT NEED TAXPAYER DOLLARS to survive,

Instead they PAY TAXES to the government.

This is not the 1950's,Communications and media are everywhere.

What could your government do with an extra Billion a year?

[August1991]

What could your government do with an extra Billion a year?

You're asking the wrong question. It's not what our government could do with an extra billion but rather what the country would do if we didn't have the CBC. No doubt many would wind up spending in other ways something close to a billion but they'd probably get far less.

The CBC (English/French, Radio/TV, coast to coast) costs each Canadian about $30 annually. IMV, that's cheap. I appreciate that radio is available in both languages without advertisements. I rarely watch TV but when I do, I appreciate Bernard Derome's diction and style.

IOW, the CBC and taxes are a cheap way to get broadcasting signals. The alternative is more expensive.

OTOH, I really, really, really dislike the way the English CBC radio is run, the news it reports, and the crap it produces. English CBC radio is frozen in a 1960s, leftist time warp. Profit is bad, America is evil and Rex Murphy is a token "right-winger". The news covers international atrocities before domestic affairs of genuine interest to me. These people (Anna-Maria Tremonte and the rest) are clueless. They speak like high school teachers with union seniority.

I haven't given up on the idea of taxpayer financed radio but I really think that the CBC bureaucracy is too bureaucratic. Job security kills innovation. With the advent of Sirius, I'm beginning to think that maybe technology has solved the free-rider problem.

BTW, French CBC news, given the tension of Quebec sovereignty I think, turns out to be quite good and objective.

Nobody cares if you've "had enough".

You're welcome to watch and listen to something else.

We can watch something else, but we still have to pay so that you can watch the CBC for free.

[geoffrey]

If its provided adequately at reasonable prices by the private sector, it should be provided by the private sector.

It creates unfair competition between privately held firms and one station with commericals funded by the government. How can one compete when there is an extra billion in the bank?

CBC charges significantly less per commerical and really undercuts the entire Canadian broadcast media market.

If it went commerical free, then maybe, but still, I don't understand why the private sector can't provide the same service. That is unless of course, no one watches it.