CBC Viciously Attacks Bush

geoffrey · August 20, 2006

The CBC needs a major wakeup call.

Tonight, CBC Newsworld aired their show The Lens. The topic was on stupidity in media and politics. And guess who their prime example was.

They continuosly attacked Bush through misrepresentations of statements, and quoting the 'great minds' of Chomsky and Michael Moore, 'backed-up' the claims. No mention that Michael Moore is just a university drop out (Bush even graduated!), and outside of his little circle of socialist buddies, considered a complete idiot. No mention that Chomsky, a great intellectual in linguistics and messing with people's minds through words (his actual education is in this), is far less politically educated and experienced than Bush.

They outlined how Bush was just a mere 'frat boy' and not an intellectual. This shows that he isn't capable of doing anything, how we need to elect democrats because they aren't frat boys. All coming from a university drop out and an unqualified intellectual that has never seen the light of the real world.

Chomsky commented that Bush had no knowledge of history... despite Bush being a history major and Chomsky not being a history major. If he refutes Bush's academic qualifications, at least do so being qualified!

But for the CBC, this is enough, and they portray Bush as about dumb as can be, even having the producer of the document expressly say that Bush is "the lowest common denominator."

I was honestly shocked that this documentary was aired. Someone needs to lose their job and career over this. And the funding needs to be pulled immediately before any more Canadian government funds end up behind partisan idealogical propaganda films.

--

Now, personally I'm not a big Bush fan. I don't agree with his economics, I don't like his attitude and I am far from 100% behind his foreign policy. But this attack, from our state sponsored media giant, goes beyond disrespectful for the leader of a foreign nation.

If Chretien was labelled a moronic idiot and an uneducation, uncapable fool by a US government funded production, the outrage in Canada would have been unbelievable. Even if Fox News aired such an attack piece on our leaders, there would be backlash like none other.

Instead, we allow the CBC to continue to propagate their forms of partisan propaganda on our dollar. Why? Why do Canadians allow the CBC to disgrace us internationally, make us look like a country of ignorant, unintellectual media puppets? Maybe we are?

This isn't all about the CBC, this is about much more.

1) Why is open Canadian disrespect for others tolerated, but disrespect towards us so heavily criticised?

2) Is it democratically or morally permissive to have a state funded media outlet produce heavily biased propaganda works?

3) And mostly, why are Canadians so rude, or if we are not, why do we allow our tax dollar funded productions to be so rude? There is a proper way to discuss your differences in opinion, and this production, was far from that.

Jerry J. Fortin · August 21, 2006

I am not a Bush fan either, but you are right in that when the Canadian Government owned and operated CBC starts trashing international leaders it becomes problematic. On the one hand there is sometimes cause for this sort of thing, like speaking out against terrorism or naked aggression but that certainly doesn't apply to the USA. On the other hand as an arms length corporation they should have the autonomy to do as they please.

The problem that I see is that our relationship with the United States is far more important than our relationship with the CBC. We can certainly do without the CBC but to do without the USA would prove to be a hardship for Canadians because of the economic and cultural integration that has been going on for a number of years.

geoffrey · August 21, 2006

Absolutely Jerry.

I'm concerned about our freedom as well though. Can we justify having a state sponored media source that spews partisan propaganda?

I thought these sort of things were left to Russia and Nazi Germany? If a private broadcaster wants to say whatever they want to, I'll support their right to say it. But our government shouldn't be producing anti-Bush propaganda.

August1991 · August 21, 2006

Another anti-CBC rant! Pile on!

I mind less that the CBC criticizes Bush, I object more to the fact it never says anything good about the guy. I can't recall ever hearing a CBC report of any kind even suggesting that Bush was a nice guy or had done something good. In CBC world, Bush is either stupid or fascist. In either case, he's a menace to the world.

I frankly think the CBC has already become a "commercial" station seeking listeners. It knows its clientele and knows that if it said anything good about Bush and his ilk, listeners would turn to another station. And then the CBC would have no listeners at all.

I wonder whether CBC's stake in Sirius has anything to do with its take on US politics?

Black Dog · August 21, 2006

Tonight, CBC Newsworld aired their show The Lens. The topic was on stupidity in media and politics. And guess who their prime example was...

A new series for the new year, CBC NEWS: THE LENS features innovative, compelling documentaries made exclusively by independent Canadian filmmakers. These up close and personal documentaries feature dramatic stories with new perspectives; films that inform, provoke and entertain while giving fresh insights into contemporary Canadian society.

IOW, this program was not produced by the CBC.

Shakeyhands · August 21, 2006

IOW, this program was not produced by the CBC.

Come on... what do facts matter? This is a CBC pile on! Everyone... write the Ombudsman!!!! :rolleyes:

jdobbin · August 21, 2006

I wonder whether CBC's stake in Sirius has anything to do with its take on US politics?

Sirius Satellite and XM Satellite are listed as the worst performing stocking in the U.S.

They will probably be merged within the year but that will not likely halt its decline since iPods now have plug-ins into car stereo systems and that over the air radio signals have digital quality sound.

CBC is not heard on the U.S. Sirius, so why should it have a "take" on U.S. politics strictly for satellite radio?

LonJowett · August 21, 2006

No mention that Michael Moore is just a university drop out (Bush even graduated!), and outside of his little circle of socialist buddies, considered a complete idiot.

Considering how many people went to Fahrenheit 9/11 and read his books, that's a multi-million person circle of friends.

No mention that Chomsky, a great intellectual in linguistics and messing with people's minds through words (his actual education is in this), is far less politically educated and experienced than Bush.

Messing with people's minds through words? Do you even know what linguistics is?

Chomsky commented that Bush had no knowledge of history... despite Bush being a history major and Chomsky not being a history major. If he refutes Bush's academic qualifications, at least do so being qualified!

Okay, let me guess. You're still a student. Because no grwon-up in the real world would consider somebody's "major" to be a primary qualification for discussion of an issue.

But for the CBC, this is enough, and they portray Bush as about dumb as can be, even having the producer of the document expressly say that Bush is "the lowest common denominator."

Bush portrays himself to be as dumb as can be. He doesn't need any help. He's even made it part of his schtick. Didn't you see him discuss foreign policy over dinner with Blair?

I was honestly shocked that this documentary was aired. Someone needs to lose their job and career over this. And the funding needs to be pulled immediately before any more Canadian government funds end up behind partisan idealogical propaganda films.

What's wrong with being partisan and ideological in a documentary? People are still allowed to express opinions, aren't they? You just can't handle it when you disagree with someone?

1) Why is open Canadian disrespect for others tolerated, but disrespect towards us so heavily criticised?

Because we live in a democracy where different ideas are openly discussed.

2) Is it democratically or morally permissive to have a state funded media outlet produce heavily biased propaganda works?

Everything is biased. How heavily it is biased or whether it is propaganda is totally subjective.

3) And mostly, why are Canadians so rude, or if we are not, why do we allow our tax dollar funded productions to be so rude? There is a proper way to discuss your differences in opinion, and this production, was far from that.?

Because we get mad when people start wars to make themselves wealthy.

Michael Hardner · August 21, 2006

I don't think it matters if CBC produced the doc or not. Their documentary fare seems to lack variety, in my opinion.

LonJowett · August 21, 2006

Their documentary fare seems to lack variety, in my opinion.

That's a shocking accusation.

Michael Hardner · August 21, 2006

Sarcasm doesn't come over well, in print.

newbie · August 22, 2006

Uh, try changing the bloody channel. There are worse things your tax dollars are buying.

uOttawaMan · August 22, 2006

CBC.. Fox News.. both heavily biased.. which is why I watch both for entertainment.

BubberMiley · August 22, 2006

I'm concerned about our freedom as well though.

Get real.

kimmy · August 22, 2006

A new series for the new year, CBC NEWS: THE LENS features innovative, compelling documentaries made exclusively by independent Canadian filmmakers. These up close and personal documentaries feature dramatic stories with new perspectives; films that inform, provoke and entertain while giving fresh insights into contemporary Canadian society.

IOW, this program was not produced by the CBC.

How independent are these independent film-makers, though? By and large we're talking about people who've received grants from government or interest-groups aren't they?

When I bother to tune in to one of these things-- which is pretty seldom, I admit-- I generally find the perspectives to be rather homogenous and predictable.

-k

LonJowett · August 22, 2006

How independent are these independent film-makers, though? By and large we're talking about people who've received grants from government or interest-groups aren't they?

By that logic, nobody is truly independent and everybody's opinion is suspect because someone, somewhere wrote them a cheque.

When I bother to tune in to one of these things-- which is pretty seldom, I admit-- I generally find the perspectives to be rather homogenous and predictable.

You mean documentaries in general?

fellowtraveller · August 22, 2006

CBC.. Fox News.. both heavily biased.. which is why I watch both for entertainment.

Excellent answer.

I assume you'd also support levelling the field then, just in the interest of fairness? Either the Canadian government should start subsidizing Fox, or stop subsidizing the CBC. Choose one, and only one.

And the suggestion the 'The Lens' is at arms length from the CBC because the documentaries are 'independently produced ' is laughable. This would only be credible if the producers of The Lens aired some pro-Bush material, and how likely is that?

geoffrey · August 23, 2006

I'm not concerned about 'bias' in media, all media is biased and people just need to get over it and watch conflicting viewpoints.

When the government, though, produces propaganda materials through what's supposed to be an independant agency, it troubles me. This kind of stuff happens in third world dictatorships, not democracies.

Let show producing be left to the media and governing to government. The two interests are in conflict.

ClearWest · August 23, 2006

If all media is biased then perhaps the government shouldn't be involved in media.

Leftwing opinions won't be suppressed in a capitalist world. Michael Moore's documentaries are proof of that. In capitalism, people of all opinions are free to express their views and even market them to the world. Even though I disagree with much of Moore's views, I admit that I enjoy watching his movies and will even pay to see them. It isn't so in a socialism--the government can choose not to give grants to reporters whom they disagree with.

Sure, Fox may do the same thing--but at least my money isn't going towards them. I can boycott Fox and never have anything to do with them. We could all choose to boycott CBC and they would still be running (mind you, with less advertisement money, but the gov't wouldn't care, they would run on more taxes).

I suggest privatization.

geoffrey · August 23, 2006

If all media is biased then perhaps the government shouldn't be involved in media.
Leftwing opinions won't be suppressed in a capitalist world. Michael Moore's documentaries are proof of that. In capitalism, people of all opinions are free to express their views and even market them to the world. Even though I disagree with much of Moore's views, I admit that I enjoy watching his movies and will even pay to see them. It isn't so in a socialism--the government can choose not to give grants to reporters whom they disagree with.

Sure, Fox may do the same thing--but at least my money isn't going towards them. I can boycott Fox and never have anything to do with them. We could all choose to boycott CBC and they would still be running (mind you, with less advertisement money, but the gov't wouldn't care, they would run on more taxes).

I suggest privatization.

I'm forced to agree.

sharkman · August 26, 2006

There's one more item to consider when discussing the CBC. They claim they are objective, and sneer at Fox as if they are the only biased news organization. It is this insistance of objectivity that reveals their true mindset: delusion.

Figleaf · August 31, 2006

Bush is a total disaster as a president and has proven himself repeatedly to be unintelligent. It is therefore not out of line for a news outlet to make that observation.

Black Dog · August 31, 2006

When the government, though, produces propaganda materials through what's supposed to be an independant agency, it troubles me. This kind of stuff happens in third world dictatorships, not democracies.

Oh come now, don't be naive. At least when you watch teh CBC you know what you're getting. It's not like they're secretly paying pundits to espouse government views or actually producing news stories for media outlets as the Bush admin has done.

Sure, Fox may do the same thing--but at least my money isn't going towards them. I can boycott Fox and never have anything to do with them. We could all choose to boycott CBC and they would still be running (mind you, with less advertisement money, but the gov't wouldn't care, they would run on more taxes).

Hey let's all pick the things we don't want our tax dollars funding! I pick Harper's salary.

BTW: I've noticed something about the CBC. The more funding it loses, and the more it strives to be competitive to justify its existence, the shittier it gets. I'd like to see some idelogical diversity on MotherCorp (if only to shut the rightwingers up for a minute or two), but I'd rather not see it thrown to the wolves of the free market. I like the fact here's one channel I can turn to that is still (relatively) free of infantile reality TV and schlock cops'n'robbers programming.

fellowtraveller · August 31, 2006

I'd like to see some idelogical diversity on MotherCorp (if only to shut the rightwingers up for a minute or two), but I'd rather not see it thrown to the wolves of the free market. I like the fact here's one channel I can turn to that is still (relatively) free of infantile reality TV and schlock cops'n'robbers programming.

I'm sure you'd agree that it is ridiculous for me to expect you to pay for the entertainment sources I enjoy: newspapers, movies, sports, Internet etc.. Yet you are quite content to have your fellow citizens pay for your entertainment. I can see how that might delight you, but can you comprehend why the reverse is not so?

Two options presented are to keep CBC as it is, or 'throw it to the wolves of the free market'. How about another and better option? Turn the assets of the CBC over to a non-profit group of suppoprters, cancel all subsidies permanently, and you and your mates can do whatever you wish with it nd support it via subscription. Sound fair?

Black Dog · August 31, 2006

I'm sure you'd agree that it is ridiculous for me to expect you to pay for the entertainment sources I enjoy: newspapers, movies, sports, Internet etc.. Yet you are quite content to have your fellow citizens pay for your entertainment. I can see how that might delight you, but can you comprehend why the reverse is not so?

My tax dollars go towards a lot of crap I don't support or agree with. C'est la vie. Even if the CBC were rabidly partisan in a way I disagree with I can think of bigger fish to fry. Anyway, the reason I lke public broadcasting is that I think it can provide things the free market won't.