Passionate Eye

[dirk diggler]

Did anyone catch this show on TV last night... it was all about the Bush family, primarily the current pres. it was similiar to farenheit 911, in that it took aim at Bush, but regardless of ones opinion, there is a lot of factual info. Bushs grandfather was a banker, who as it turns out was the private banker to Adolph Hitler for example.. i'm not a fan of politics, but it was interesting.

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

So his grandfather was a banker to Hitler? That is what they were tacking on him?

[Cowperson]

If I'm not mistaken, that's the fourth anti-Bush documentary on CBC in the last month versus zero attacking Kerry.

CBC Newsworld put on the air a stridently anti-Bush documentary entitled The World According to Bush. The CBC hyped the feature on its Web site with these words: "If you're not yet having nightmares about the world being in the hands of a circle of crazed zealots, this should do it," and "Fans and critics of the acclaimed Fahrenheit 9/11 will want to see this thoughtful and damning investigation of the U.S. administration."

That's not all. CBC's Fifth Estate recently aired The Unauthorized Biography of Dick Cheney, a documentary about Dick Cheney's life, which, according to the CBC's Web site, "involves the relentless accumulation of power in every form." And the network's Rough Cuts program is hyping a documentary called Stupidity, which focuses on the U.S. President as as example of "stupidity as a driving force in society." - (From a National Post editorial).

No . . . CBC isn't biased. No way. Not a chance!!

Cowperson

[Lurch]

And the network's Rough Cuts program is hyping a documentary called Stupidity, which focuses on the U.S. President as as example of "stupidity as a driving force in society."

I wouldn't call it bias since it's true!

Regardless, I think your vitriol for CBC is a little inconsistent with your seeming apologist approach to Fox. Both are simply appealing to their constituents - very few righties watch CBC and they have plenty of other options. I submit that CBC is putting on the programming that will get it the best ratings given the make-up of their audience. Maybe you should alter your critique to say they are becoming too much like the dirty capitalists they loathe!! :P Or should they go to airing moderate, thoughtful pieces that nobody watches, ignoring the pressure for ratings?

[RougeUnderoos]

I don't hold the CBC in the same contempt and I normally don't think they are as bad as many say but last night was 'I Hate Bush Night' on Newsworld. Those documentaries (or maybe it was only one) were running all night. You couldn't get past channel 15 without stopping to hear someone (usually a CIA guy) badmouthing George.

[Agamemnon]

I've watched this documentary at least 3 times on Newsworld in the last 10ish days.

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by Lurch@Nov 2 2004, 04:46 PM

I wouldn't call it bias since it's true!

Regardless, I think your vitriol for CBC is a little inconsistent with your seeming apologist approach to Fox. Both are simply appealing to their constituents - very few righties watch CBC and they have plenty of other options. I submit that CBC is putting on the programming that will get it the best ratings given the make-up of their audience. Maybe you should alter your critique to say they are becoming too much like the dirty capitalists they loathe!! :P Or should they go to airing moderate, thoughtful pieces that nobody watches, ignoring the pressure for ratings?

I've said very clearly and frequently that FOX has a reputation for a clear right wing bias so I really have no idea what you're talking about with your statement.

In fact, I use both CBC and FOX as the goalposts for the left and the right. I don't recall ever defending FOX other than to say you can go there OR CBC and get the basic facts on a story.

I submit that CBC is putting on the programming that will get it the best ratings given the make-up of their audience.

Since CBC usually has the lowest rated audiences for most local markets where it has competition, they don't seem to be doing a particularly good job of hitting the people you say they're appealing to. Unless its the NDP crowd, in which case they're doing splendidly.

At the beginning of the 1990s, 28% of all early evening news viewers tuned into the CBC. That figure has dropped to 13% over the decade.

CBC executives were responding to political and public pressure over a report in yesterday's National Post that they plan to kill existing supper-hour shows and eliminate 674 jobs in the process – half the CBC's regional TV workforce. The shows would be replaced by one national supper-hour show with regional inserts.

http://www.friends.ca/News/Friends_News/ar...les05110003.asp

That move, in 2000, as you're probably aware, was an even bigger disaster for CBC ratings.

CTV Evening News has been a top 20 program nationally the last six weeks running whereas Peter Mansbridge has not cracked the list once. I noted a story earlier in October which mentioned Coronation Street was drawing a bigger audience number than The National.

Cowperson

[FlamesAddiction]

Could it be that there is simply more dirt on Bush? Kerry hasn't even jumped into the pool yet.

BTW, being a banker to Hitler probably meant a lot less in the 30's than it does now. Before all the horrors of the Nazis came to light, Hitler was actually regarded in a positve light by many in North America because he was anti-communist. In fact, I can't remember his name, but there was a famous conservative at the time who had a radio show (deja-vu) who every week used to praise Hitler and Mussolini. Considering that people didn't know then what they know now, it is a little more forgivable.

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by FlamesAddiction@Nov 2 2004, 06:30 PM
Could it be that there is simply more dirt on Bush? Kerry hasn't even jumped into the pool yet.

BTW, being a banker to Hitler probably meant a lot less in the 30's than it does now. Before all the horrors of the Nazis came to light, Hitler was actually regarded in a positve light by many in North America because he was anti-communist. In fact, I can't remember his name, but there was a famous conservative at the time who had a radio show (deja-vu) who every week used to praise Hitler and Mussolini. Considering that people didn't know then what they know now, it is a little more forgivable.

Its not about presenting an anti-Bush program. More power to them. Be my guest. Go right ahead.

Where's the contrary view? That's the issue.

And what about those saucy introductions? Wouldn't that be the accusation leveled at FOX as well?

By the way, your Globe & Mail today has a review on how the Canadian print media covered the USA election. Fairly it says, in spite of the obvious distate Canadians have for G.W. Bush. Its a subscriber only link.

Cowperson

[Daradon]

Originally posted by Cowperson+Nov 2 2004, 12:50 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Cowperson @ Nov 2 2004, 12:50 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-FlamesAddiction@Nov 2 2004, 06:30 PM
Could it be that there is simply more dirt on Bush? Kerry hasn't even jumped into the pool yet.

BTW, being a banker to Hitler probably meant a lot less in the 30's than it does now. Before all the horrors of the Nazis came to light, Hitler was actually regarded in a positve light by many in North America because he was anti-communist. In fact, I can't remember his name, but there was a famous conservative at the time who had a radio show (deja-vu) who every week used to praise Hitler and Mussolini. Considering that people didn't know then what they know now, it is a little more forgivable.

Its not about presenting an anti-Bush program. More power to them. Be my guest. Go right ahead.

Where's the contrary view? That's the issue.

And what about those saucy introductions? Wouldn't that be the accusation leveled at FOX as well?

By the way, your Globe & Mail today has a review on how the Canadian print media covered the USA election. Fairly it says, in spite of the obvious distate Canadians have for G.W. Bush. Its a subscriber only link.

Cowperson [/b][/quote]
I get what Flamesaddiction is saying though.

1. Kerry hasn't really gotten his feet wet yet and he hasn't been the president. There is more, WAY more material on Bush.

2. Some viewpoints don't really have contrary view that make sense. Just simplifying it here for a second, if someone were to argue that the world was flat or that the sky was red (not during a sunrise or sunset) it wouldn't warrent a investigation or a TV show. Going back to this specific example, not all issues have contrary viewpoints, or if they do, the weight of information my be stacked clearly on one side. It's hard to be anti-Kerry because he hasn't done the things Bush has done, point blank. It might be because he'll never do em, or just because he hasn't had a chance yet because he isn't president. As well, it's hard to be Pro-Bush here in Canada because as polls have shown, the vast, VAST majority of Canadian's would support Kerry (like by a 3-1 margin or something). Sure a pro Bush show could be aired, but how many Canadians would watch it? Sure the CBC is floundering anyway, but that doesn't mean a pro-Bush show wouldn't do even worse then he regularly terrible ratings they do get. Going back to the viewpoint issue again, a show lauding Bush might just simply have less material. This race would not be close in any other 1st world nation, and most other nations in he world.

3. I don't know about the other programs, but I caught the tail end of 'Stupidity' and it wasn't saying Bush was stupid at all. It asked the question, as it's been a popular topic among casual political observers, but in the end, it showed how he had to be very intelligent, so really, quite the opposite.

You often mention you don't watch these shows, (maybe you did this one I don't know) so I'll just remind it's hard and dangerous to base an opinion of them based on the title or the tag line. Like the ongoing debates about F911 on this board. I had problems with it too, but I don't think anyone who didn't watch it should really be judging it or the material contained within.

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by Daradon+Nov 2 2004, 10:25 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Daradon @ Nov 2 2004, 10:25 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Its not about presenting an anti-Bush program. More power to them. Be my guest. Go right ahead.

Where's the contrary view? That's the issue.

And what about those saucy introductions? Wouldn't that be the accusation leveled at FOX as well?

By the way, your Globe & Mail today has a review on how the Canadian print media covered the USA election. Fairly it says, in spite of the obvious distate Canadians have for G.W. Bush. Its a subscriber only link.

Cowperson

I get what Flamesaddiction is saying though.

1. Kerry hasn't really gotten his feet wet yet and he hasn't been the president. There is more, WAY more material on Bush.

2. Some viewpoints don't really have contrary view that make sense. Just simplifying it here for a second, if someone were to argue that the world was flat or that the sky was red (not during a sunrise or sunset) it wouldn't warrent a investigation or a TV show. Going back to this specific example, not all issues have contrary viewpoints, or if they do, the weight of information my be stacked clearly on one side. It's hard to be anti-Kerry because he hasn't done the things Bush has done, point blank. It might be because he'll never do em, or just because he hasn't had a chance yet because he isn't president. As well, it's hard to be Pro-Bush here in Canada because as polls have shown, the vast, VAST majority of Canadian's would support Kerry (like by a 3-1 margin or something). Sure a pro Bush show could be aired, but how many Canadians would watch it? Sure the CBC is floundering anyway, but that doesn't mean a pro-Bush show wouldn't do even worse then he regularly terrible ratings they do get. Going back to the viewpoint issue again, a show lauding Bush might just simply have less material. This race would not be close in any other 1st world nation, and most other nations in he world.

3. I don't know about the other programs, but I caught the tail end of 'Stupidity' and it wasn't saying Bush was stupid at all. It asked the question, as it's been a popular topic among casual political observers, but in the end, it showed how he had to be very intelligent, so really, quite the opposite.

You often mention you don't watch these shows, (maybe you did this one I don't know) so I'll just remind it's hard and dangerous to base an opinion of them based on the title or the tag line. Like the ongoing debates about F911 on this board. I had problems with it too, but I don't think anyone who didn't watch it should really be judging it or the material contained within. [/b][/quote]
If you're saying there's nothing derogatory to present on John Kerry you must have missed that election thing going on in the USA.

Again, its irrelevant as to whether or not you like one guy over another. By all means, smear George Bush on CBC. Make my day. Go right ahead.

However, its a slant if you're smearing one guy and not presenting your viewers with the opposing viewpoint for balance. And that's clearly the position of the CBC.

By the way, you guys defending the CBC sound a lot like the guys you laugh at for defending FOX.

In fact, you shouldn't be defending either. That's my only point.

However, if it makes you feel better I'm going to be getting my head drilled by a dentist in about an hour!!!

Cowperson

[Daradon]

Originally posted by Cowperson@Nov 2 2004, 04:33 PM
If you're saying there's nothing derogatory to present on John Kerry you must have missed that election thing going on in the USA.

Again, its irrelevant as to whether or not you like one guy over another. By all means, smear George Bush on CBC. Make my day. Go right ahead.

However, its a slant if you're smearing one guy and not presenting your viewers with the opposing viewpoint for balance. And that's clearly the position of the CBC.

By the way, you guys defending the CBC sound a lot like the guys you laugh at for defending FOX.

In fact, you shouldn't be defending either. That's my only point.

However, if it makes you feel better I'm going to be getting my head drilled by a dentist in about an hour!!!

Cowperson

I wasn't saying there was nothing to smear Kerry with, I was saying there was far less. The two big issues were 'waffling on issues' and the whole Swift Boat thing, which is significantly less material than what was presented with Bush. I'm not saying it wasn't slanted, I'm saying, it's not as easy (or maybe even possible) to make sure it's 50-50 both ways, especially with the way Bush has played the international community.

And yes, I'd defend the CBC over Fox anyday. Not that I was one of the big voices screaming against Fox anyway...

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by Daradon@Nov 2 2004, 10:46 PM
I wasn't saying there was nothing to smear Kerry with, I was saying there was far less.

In your opinion obviously. We can tell from the election that others might disagree.

And yes, I'd defend the CBC over Fox anyday. Not that I was one of the big voices screaming against Fox anyway...

You're a fan of CBC. I can tell. We all got an opinion. Nothing wrong with that.

I gotta go to the dentist.

Cowperson

[Daradon]

Originally posted by Cowperson+Nov 2 2004, 04:53 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Cowperson @ Nov 2 2004, 04:53 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Daradon@Nov 2 2004, 10:46 PM
I wasn't saying there was nothing to smear Kerry with, I was saying there was far less.

In your opinion obviously. We can tell from the election that others might disagree.

And yes, I'd defend the CBC over Fox anyday. Not that I was one of the big voices screaming against Fox anyway...

You're a fan of CBC. I can tell. We all got an opinion. Nothing wrong with that.

I gotta go to the dentist.

Cowperson [/b][/quote]
Ok then, so enlighten me? Besides those two big issues, (and perhpas that he didn't have a clear plan for the country, though I think he illustrated that better from the second debate onward) what would others have slandered him with? Outright slandered? Were not talking gay rights or abortion or taxes or stuff like that that is the topic of debates all the time. Actual material that people would have made a big issue out of the way the rest of the world made issues out of the things Bush did.

I'm not a Kerry fan, I'm saying that he hasn't had the opportunity to make enemies the way Bush has.

As well, I might enjoy watching the CBC from time to time, but I also enjoy watching the BBC. Living in Canada, it makes sense I get most of my news from CBC. Doesn't mean I don't think it can be biased, doesn't mean I don't take it with a grain of salt. And it certainly doesn't make me a fan. I'd love to see a competing Canadian based news channel.

I wish you'd stop putting words into my (and others) mouths. Are you just mad cause I called you out on the 'Stupidity' program?

This is way I was going to stay away from the political debates, yeesh.

Have fun at the dentist... Ok, no seriously, I hope it goes well and he doesn hurt you too much.

[Cowperson]

1) Where did I put words in your mouth?

2) Why would you think I was mad at you about anything?

3) Why would you think I'm arguing a case against Kerry?. I've said repeatedly I want him to win the election.

I said the CBC has a left wing bias, demonstrated it yet again and have challenged you before to find one (1) example of where the CBC has ever been charged with having a right wing bias by a third party.

Also, needles hurt.

Cowperson

[Daradon]

Originally posted by Cowperson@Nov 2 2004, 06:35 PM
1) Where did I put words in your mouth?

2) Why would you think I was mad at you about anything?

3) Why would you think I'm arguing a case against Kerry?. I've said repeatedly I want him to win the election.

I said the CBC has a left wing bias, demonstrated it yet again and have challenged you before to find one (1) example of where the CBC has ever been charged with having a right wing bias by a third party.

Also, needles hurt.

Cowperson

Ok, sorry if I misinterpretted you and your emotions, but the jab about me being a fan of CBC was putting words in my mouth, to a certain extent at least.

Your tone seemed like you were at least a little disgruntled. You kinda have this 'passive-aggressive' way of debating about you sometimes. I'm sorry if I misinterpretted.

At least with a poster like Lanny you know where he stands, if not exactly what he means...

As I mentioned before about your challenge, it is kind of a loaded challenge as there is not as much international scrutiny on Canadian media as there is on the U.S. media. ut I did mention I would keep my eyes open for such a claim. Until then, I yield on that point. In this argument I was just saying that anti-Bush docs make more sense then pro-Bush docs and may not have been because of a bias. I also mentioned I had seen one of the programs you were talking about, and it wasn't 'anti-Bush' even though it may have billed as such.

And yes, needles do hurt I suppose. Hope you're ok.

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by Daradon@Nov 3 2004, 12:42 AM
As I mentioned before about your challenge, it is kind of a loaded challenge as there is not as much international scrutiny on Canadian media as there is on the U.S. media.

I wouldn't say its a loaded challenge. I would say its a hopeless challenge. That's like shooting fish in a barrel.

At least with a poster like Lanny you know where he stands, if not exactly what he means...

If you had seen my e-mail exchange with Lanny a few days ago, where I reminded him of something he wrote me in 2001, you would have smacked yourself in the forehead for that. And yes, that's an "in" joke.

And yes, needles do hurt I suppose. Hope you're ok.

My mouf wud frozed but I was eating Cheezies on the way home and have been eating Halloween candy all night. Self inflicted wounds.
Cowperson