CBC to study whether they are biased

[John Doe]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Why should they? That man from Calgary who opined about the idea of setting up a firewall did not do so on the dime of the Canadian tax payer. The idiot Liberal pollster did.

I have no problem at all with the CBC's bias - so long as I am not forced to pay for it.

But we taxpayers are paying the same guy to a tune of over a couple hundred thousand a year. I don't have any problem with Harper's bias - so long as I am not forced to pay for it (and I don't mean financially).

And the pollster who is liberal (there is a difference) did no such thing on the dime of the Canadian tax payer. He said his piece in a Globe and Mail article, and as far as I know he wasn't paid a penny for his advice.

[John Doe]

Originally Posted by transplant99

400 bucks to a guy in his riding, vs 11,000 to the federal libs. Same thing you say? OK then.

A donation is a donation. If it is wrong that he donated to the Liberal party, why isn't it just as wrong that he donated to the Conservative party? Or is it simply the amount? If so, what amount is allowable, and over what period of time? Besides, aren't the Conservatives the ones that want political parties to get their funds solely from political donations? Then why are they so upset if someone does donate money?

Originally Posted by transplant99

No. I am suggesting that if you donate money to a political party, then offer advice on starting a culture war based on polling data as a way to garner votes in hopes of re-gaining power.... all the while getting contracts from Canadian taxpayers, there is a blatent and obvious conflict of interest.

Please let us know how or where he was biased in any way while he was in the employment of the CBC, or anyone else for that matter. What he said on his own time is his own business. He did nothing illegal or immoral. Or is it because he is a Liberal? I know that Tom Flanagan has expressed similar views and is sometimes employed as a commentator by CBC. Do you have a problem with that as well?

Originally Posted by transplant99

Where did anyone attack his politcal views?

Are you serious? The last half of this thread has been attacking him for his political views.

Originally Posted by transplant99

you have to be joking.

No, I am not. Making a donation to a political party does not make you a member of that party. Can you not see the difference between a specialist paid by a political party to repeat their talking points and a non-affiliated professional who happens to have a political view?

[VladtheImpaler]

What I find incredibly funny is that you guys are so dogged as to keep arguing about the bias issue, even in the face of CBC's own admission. I think the CBC's bias is a given - the only argument left is whether it should be taxpayer-funded.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by VladtheImpaler

What I find incredibly funny is that you guys are so dogged as to keep arguing about the bias issue, even in the face of CBC's own admission. I think the CBC's bias is a given - the only argument left is whether it should be taxpayer-funded.

Yeah its so goofy im not bothering anymore.

liberl supporters showing true colors tho...obfuscate, deny, deny some more, change the topic.

But you are right, the CBC is biased, they have admitted it, anyone with any amount of objectivity can see it, and most don't even care about it other than the fact they are that way on the taxpayers dime.

back to the original point, its such an issue that they are investigating it themselves yet again. But somehow according to the red blinder brigade, they do nothing wrong...ever

And to me the real point is that they shouldn't even be a crown corporation any longer. They have no bias? They make such wonderful shows? They are the voice of reason and have refect canadians so well? Then they should have ZERO problem doing it strictly on ad revenue like every other broadcaster in Canada must do.

[Vulcan]

Like I said in my first post, everybody and every institution is biased. It can become a matter of self preservation. That the CBC can admit their bias speaks volumes for their striving to give balanced coverage. You'll never hear or see other news agencies admit this.

[VladtheImpaler]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

Like I said in my first post, everybody and every institution is biased. It can become a matter of self preservation. That the CBC can admit their bias speaks volumes for their striving to give balanced coverage. You'll never hear or see other news agencies admit this.

I disagree. Now, explain to me why I need to pay for this?

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

Like I said in my first post, everybody and every institution is biased. It can become a matter of self preservation. That the CBC can admit their bias speaks volumes for their striving to give balanced coverage. You'll never hear or see other news agencies admit this.

So basically you are saying that because CBC has admitted they are biased against the right and pro left, they are able to give a more balanced news coverage.

.... way too funny...

Even in defeat you're trying to twist things in favour of the CBC. You my friend, should apply for a job as a Liberal or NDP spin doctor. You have an immense talent for it.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Rerun

So basically you are saying that because CBC has admitted they are biased against the right and pro left, they are able to give a more balanced news coverage.

.... way too funny...

Even in defeat you're trying to twist things in favour of the CBC. You my friend, should apply for a job as a Liberal or NDP spin doctor. You have an immense talent for it.

What defeat, I never said the CBC wasn't biased. That they are interested in rectifying this is good.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by VladtheImpaler

I disagree. Now, explain to me why I need to pay for this?

because it can give a view that is less controlled by business interests or would you rather get your news from say an arms manufacturer.

[transplant99]

because it can give a view that is less controlled by business interests

But then controlled by government interests...yes? And if so, how is that any better and why shouldnt every single broadcaster also get 1 billion dollars to operate?

[VladtheImpaler]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

because it can give a view that is less controlled by business interests or would you rather get your news from say an arms manufacturer.

Yes, Northrop is the source of all my news. There are many sources out there - I don't need to fund one. I CHOOSE to pay for the Economist; I do not wish to pay for CBC - I can make my own choices about where to get my news - I don't need the benevolent government to choose for me.

[Resolute 14]

CBC is biased towards separatists!

[OldDutch]

I think a tax payer channel is needed in Canada, even at a billion dollar expense. The some people call TV a luxury, and I say it is not. It is the defacto communication standard for our times, it is waning, but more people across all age groups still watch TV than the internet.

As such we do need somewhere to preserve our Canadian way of communication. This is because we live next to the largest entertainment behemoth on the planet. One that kills us in production quality and size by a very large margin.

You can see this in Global and CTV, how many of their top shows are Canadian? Heck even CBC has had to resort to the Simpsons and Wheel of Fortune. These are their top money makers, so these American shows get preference at expense of Canadian shows.

So if we privatize CBC what do we get? Another Americanized station playing "American Idol" or "House" re-runs. Hockey may also become harder to see because a private station may decide "Dancing with the Stars" will make more Ad dollars than Calgary vs. Phoenix game in the second double header. So that game goes to cable, or doesn't get broadcast.

You may end up regretting privatizing CBC when you can't get what you want when you need it. Just a thought.

[VladtheImpaler]

So, what's to stop the CBC operating as PBS does south of the border? PBS offers "high-brow" programming, and obviously enough people are interested to donate money to sustain it. CBC, otoh, offers moronic garbage because it's "Canadian". Be all-Canadian by all means, but dance for your dollar - if your programming is interesting enough, they will come...

[troutman]

Is BBC biased?

[troutman]

Originally Posted by VladtheImpaler

So, what's to stop the CBC operating as PBS does south of the border? PBS offers "high-brow" programming, and obviously enough people are interested to donate money to sustain it. CBC, otoh, offers moronic garbage because it's "Canadian". Be all-Canadian by all means, but dance for your dollar - if your programming is interesting enough, they will come...

PBS seems to only show their best programming during pledge drives. The rest of the year it is some guy doing water colors.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by OldDutch

I think a tax payer channel is needed in Canada, even at a billion dollar expense. The some people call TV a luxury, and I say it is not. It is the defacto communication standard for our times, it is waning, but more people across all age groups still watch TV than the internet.

As such we do need somewhere to preserve our Canadian way of communication. This is because we live next to the largest entertainment behemoth on the planet. One that kills us in production quality and size by a very large margin.

Thats why we have Canadian Content rules. I'm sure that in exchange for a savings of 1.1 billion in funding, the government would be willing to up the Canadian content rules. Or better yet, if people want to watch Canadian Content, put CBC on a subscription service and combine that with them selling their own adverstising so it becomes self funded. Its silly for the Canadian Government to be supporting something in direct competition with other private concerns.

Originally Posted by OldDutch

You can see this in Global and CTV, how many of their top shows are Canadian? Heck even CBC has had to resort to the Simpsons and Wheel of Fortune. These are their top money makers, so these American shows get preference at expense of Canadian shows.

Maybe because the Canadian shows for the most part aren't very good. Whats the point of putting shows on a station and nobody watches these shows. Or even very few people watch the shows. If they can't survive based on their quality then should they still be in existance. A lot of these shows would fail on their own because there's not much interest in it. Making the CBC stand on its feet and actually care about viewership of their content might force an improvement of the quality of their shows.

I love documentaries, so I have the documentary station. And recently the CBC has shown the "Smartest Guys in the Room", and a bunch of Micheal Moores stuff, and some other American programming. So why am I paying taxpayer dollars for a Canadian Station thats suppossed to protect Canadian Culture by showing American shows. That seems really stupid to me, basically my tax payer dollars are going south of the border.

Originally Posted by OldDutch

So if we privatize CBC what do we get? Another Americanized station playing "American Idol" or "House" re-runs. Hockey may also become harder to see because a private station may decide "Dancing with the Stars" will make more Ad dollars than Calgary vs. Phoenix game in the second double header. So that game goes to cable, or doesn't get broadcast.

So you either privatize it and make it stand on its own two feet, or you kill it and make the Canadian Content Laws more strick which would probably force better Canadian programming. I have no problem with HNIC being moved to TSN or SNET, Canadian Tax Dollars really shouldn't be going to bid for NHL TV rights against non subsidized stations, thats an unfair business practice.

Originally Posted by OldDutch

You may end up regretting privatizing CBC when you can't get what you want when you need it. Just a thought.

There's nothing that I watch now on CBC that I can't get anywhere else, so would I regret it, not at all.

[Jetsfan]

CBC should be privatized.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by transplant99

But then controlled by government interests...yes? And if so, how is that any better and why shouldnt every single broadcaster also get 1 billion dollars to operate?

If it's controlled by government interests, why is the government complaining?

[VladtheImpaler]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

If it's controlled by government interests, why is the government complaining?

Because the Liberal Party is not in government?