This "redneck ignoramus" says lets decide..

[transplant99]

I, because of my own experience of watching the mothership for well over 30 years, have absolutely no doubt that the CBC has a left leaning way about them.

Taking a cue from those offended by calling it left leaning, and commie, I invite all who wish, too let there thoughts be known one way or another.

Here is an article from Michael Coren, who worked at the CBC for a time.

On a personal level, I have worked at the Globe and Mail and the CBC. Mediocrity aside, the purview at these places extends from Ottawa to downtown Toronto, with a glimpse of Vancouver and Banff on a good day.

A petition was started against me at the Globe, apparently because, though a columnist, I dared write that abortion perhaps concerned fathers as well as mothers. At the CBC, I was told to remove a photograph of my then new child as the "traditional family illustration" was somehow threatening and offensive to some of my state-funded comrades. I know, it's like a comedy. Not a CBC comedy; too funny for that.

On another occasion, a senior Newsworld executive apologized after making statements in the press about me that were untrue. This after a television crew had stopped me appearing on a show because they did not like my views. The fact that I was booked and confirmed didn't make any difference.

http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/Columnists/M.../25/642484.html


As I said on the main board....its really not that big a deal that there is a leftwing media outlet, all the power to them. Its is however a problem because of the 1 BILLION dollars they receive every year from ALL Canadians, and not just those that share their Liberal slant on the world.

That's my point...and i think its a very fair one.

[Clarkey]

What's with cbc newsworld showing all the left-winger documentaries? I mean sure they are entertaining but there's no doubt about where they sit on the political spectrum.

[Shawnski]

Interesting article.

I am almost of the opinion that North American media is trying to become the Yin to the Yang of North American capitalism.

On that vein, there is next to no media Yang to the Yin of the Chinese political environment. Either not allowed to in their regional environment, or we are limited to access to that information by the North American media Yin.... most likely the former.

When one considers the incredible amount of leftist Canadian press over the Kyoto accord (environmental) and gay marriage (human rights) issues vis-a-vis the massive increase in Chinese oil/coal consumption (environmental impact) and continued severe oppression of their citizens (human rights), it truly amazes me. The press for the most part gets on board with opening up trade with China; they follow the junkets over there (nice perks, I am sure) and never address the irony of their mixed messages.

So, trade with socialists is OK. Relations with capitalists is not. No?

Damn I am hungry... time to order Chinese... But that might be a problem for the press, 'cause the delivery boy isn't driving a rickshaw. Or would it be? I am confused.

[4X4]

CBC has a left-wing slant? It couldn't be!

Hmmm, can't seem to come up with any funny joke here. MAybe because it's so fudging ridiculous, that it's just not funny.
Frankly, I've got nothing against my tax money funding something like a public broadcasting type company, as long as it's relatively neutral.
While I completely gave up on the CBC years ago (except for HNIC. Loves my HNIC), I still see little clues here and there that things haven't changed. I watched a movie on CBC a couple of months ago. They were advertising "Bowling for Columbine" for Sept. 11. Nothing like a Michael Moore ""documentary"" (double quoted for EXTRA SARCASM) aired on "Canada's Broadcaster" on Sept. 11.

For the record, I believe they eventually changed the air date. But that doesn't change my opinion of them.

[Shawnski]

Originally posted by 4X4@Sep 29 2005, 05:15 PM
Nothing like a Michael Moore ""documentary"" (double quoted for EXTRA SARCASM) aired on "Canada's Broadcaster" on Sept. 11.

I read somewhere (can did it up if necessary) that Moore objected to that airing when the CBC was in the middle of a labour relations problem. Another irony, eh?

[RougeUnderoos]

Well Tranny I guess you'll be glad to hear this -- PBS funding is getting axed by 25% because of the dreaded "LIBERAL MEDIA BIAS". It might spell the end of public broadcasting down there.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...5060902283.html

PBS, in particular, drew harsh criticism in December from the Bush administration for a "Postcards From Buster" episode in which Buster, an animated rabbit, "visited" two families in Vermont headed by lesbians.

I have a feeling that the cartoon bunny was probably a communist as well.

We all know Ernie and Bert are gay as well. Big Bird is a feminist. They'll all have to go. What moron thought up the idea of giving small children ad-free television anyway?

[browna]

Originally posted by Shawnski@Sep 29 2005, 05:20 PM
I read somewhere (can did it up if necessary) that Moore objected to that airing when the CBC was in the middle of a labour relations problem. Another irony, eh?

I wonder if he refunded some of the rights fee the CBC would've paid him/his company to puchase the rights to air that documentry?

[Tron_fdc]

Being a Crown Corporation, wouldn't it only make sense that they're left leaning? I would assume that if the PC's ever took office they would probably shift more to the right.

I dunno, the only time I venture to channel 9 is when hockey is on or when they play an unedited boobie flick.

[Mike F]

Originally posted by 4X4@Sep 29 2005, 04:15 PM
Frankly, I've got nothing against my tax money funding something like a public broadcasting type company, as long as it's relatively neutral.

So you think the government should set up a bureaucratic body which monitors the programming on the CBC, and then dictates content to it to ensure that the coverage comes down right in the middle?

[transplant99]

Originally posted by RougeUnderoos@Sep 29 2005, 07:32 PM
Well Tranny I guess you'll be glad to hear this -- PBS funding is getting axed by 25% because of the dreaded "LIBERAL MEDIA BIAS". It might spell the end of public broadcasting down there.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...5060902283.html

PBS, in particular, drew harsh criticism in December from the Bush administration for a "Postcards From Buster" episode in which Buster, an animated rabbit, "visited" two families in Vermont headed by lesbians.

I have a feeling that the cartoon bunny was probably a communist as well.

We all know Ernie and Bert are gay as well. Big Bird is a feminist. They'll all have to go. What moron thought up the idea of giving small children ad-free television anyway?

How does this have anything...and i mean anything, to do with the question at hand???

I am NOT talking about PBS...i think that's pretty clear.

Also, the CBC and PBS are no where comparable IMO...since one is in competition with private companies for advertising business...and the other one isnt.

Strange retort Rouge. I actually really like PBS.

[transplant99]

So you think the government should set up a bureaucratic body which monitors the programming on the CBC, and then dictates content to it to ensure that the coverage comes down right in the middle?

Why not just quit funding it with taxpayers money, sell it to whomever wants to buy it (a potential good chunk of money that could go towards the deficit....yeah right) and let them do as they wish with any leaning they want?

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by Clarkey@Sep 29 2005, 05:10 PM
What's with cbc newsworld showing all the left-winger documentaries? I mean sure they are entertaining but there's no doubt about where they sit on the political spectrum.

They have to show all those left-wing documentaries because they can't come up with any content because they followed Marxist doctrine and locked out the union.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by transplant99@Sep 29 2005, 05:44 PM
How does this have anything...and i mean anything, to do with the question at hand???

I am NOT talking about PBS...i think that's pretty clear.

Also, the CBC and PBS are no where comparable IMO...since one is in competition with private companies for advertising business...and the other one isnt.

Strange retort Rouge. I actually really like PBS.

You grouse about tax dollars going to leftist media outlets so I thought I'd bring up tax dollars going to leftist media outlets in the country you currently live and pay taxes in.

I didn't think it was much of a stretch. Apparently it was.

Anyhow, I thought you'd be happy to know that fewer of your tax dollars were going to fund a leftist media outlet. I guess not.

[Shawnski]

Originally posted by RougeUnderoos@Sep 29 2005, 05:32 PM
Well Tranny I guess you'll be glad to hear this -- PBS funding is getting axed by 25% because of the dreaded "LIBERAL MEDIA BIAS". It might spell the end of public broadcasting down there.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...5060902283.html

OK, I am confused again (maybe because it is a Thursday)....

The article indicates...

The CPB funds are particularly important for small TV and radio stations and account for about 15 percent of the public broadcasting industry's total revenue.

... so yes, it is a cut, but it isn't taking 25% away from PBS, in fact, it would only be less than 4% of their overall funding.

And in the few minutes I have looked, I find that in this link to the CPB it lists PBS as a "Funder of Public Broadcasting". PBS is sending CPB some funding too?

Sooooo... when you say PBS's funding is being axed by 25%, I think you have miscalculated as first of all, they do not get funded directly, and even if the flow through was 100%, it would translate into the less than 4% as noted above, and lastly, they seem to be paying INTO the CPB fund!!!!

Strange, that google thingy....

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by Shawnski@Sep 29 2005, 05:57 PM
OK, I am confused again (maybe because it is a Thursday)....

The article indicates...



... so yes, it is a cut, but it isn't taking 25% away from PBS, in fact, it would only be less than 4% of their overall funding.

And in the few minutes I have looked, I find that in this link to the CPB it lists PBS as a "Funder of Public Broadcasting". PBS is sending CPB some funding too?

Sooooo... when you say PBS's funding is being axed by 25%, I think you have miscalculated as first of all, they do not get funded directly, and even if the flow through was 100%, it would translate into the less than 4% as noted above, and lastly, they seem to be paying INTO the CPB fund!!!!

Strange, that google thingy....

What is the difference? The Feds are cutting their funding of PBS. That's the point.

In addition, the subcommittee acted to eliminate within two years all federal money for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting -- which passes federal funds to public broadcasters -- starting with a 25 percent reduction in CPB's budget for next year, from $400 million to $300 million.

[4X4]

Originally posted by Mike F@Sep 29 2005, 04:41 PM
So you think the government should set up a bureaucratic body which monitors the programming on the CBC, and then dictates content to it to ensure that the coverage comes down right in the middle?

Umm, did I say that?

Let me clarify, Mike...

I'm ok with my tax dollars asisting a PUBLIC BROADCASTER. Not a left (or right) winged propaganda machine. You see, a public broadcaster is not a channel that selectively broadcasts material based on it's political bias. A public broadcaster is a channel that the public can broadcast crappy, low budget (and sometimes entertaining) shows. Like the Access Network. Neutral. I'd be okay with my tax dollars subsidizing that, so that fledgling young wannabe tv producers have a place to air their creations.

I'm not ok with my tax dollars paying to further the cause of a political party (or ideology). That is CLEARLY a conflict of interest.

Get it?

[4X4]

Originally posted by Mike F@Sep 29 2005, 04:41 PM
So you think the government should set up a bureaucratic body which monitors the programming on the CBC, and then dictates content to it to ensure that the coverage comes down right in the middle?

The really funny thing about your post is that this is spoken like a true left winger. You took a perfectly clear statement & somehow hired a couple layers of government. With my tax dollars.

[Mike F]

Originally posted by transplant99@Sep 29 2005, 04:46 PM
Why not just quit funding it with taxpayers money, sell it to whomever wants to buy it (a potential good chunk of money that could go towards the deficit....yeah right) and let them do as they wish with any leaning they want?

4x4 said flat out that he had no problem with publically funded broadcasting, so "just sell it" isn't an answer.

And you're not insinuating the the Canadian gov't hasn't put a great deal of money towards the debt, are you?

[4X4]

Originally posted by Mike F@Sep 29 2005, 05:10 PM
4x4 said flat out that he had no problem with publically funded broadcasting, so "just sell it" isn't an answer.

And you're not insinuating the the Canadian gov't hasn't put a great deal of money towards the debt, are you?

CBC isn't the same as what I'm talking about.CBC is the equivalent of the frigging Fox News Channel (just wayyyyyy on the other side of the spectrum) being funded by the American Gov't. That's not cool, no matter how you slice it.

[Mike F]

Originally posted by 4X4@Sep 29 2005, 05:05 PM
Umm, did I say that?

Let me clarify, Mike...

I'm ok with my tax dollars asisting a PUBLIC BROADCASTER. Not a left (or right) winged propaganda machine. You see, a public broadcaster is not a channel that selectively broadcasts material based on it's political bias. A public broadcaster is a channel that the public can broadcast crappy, low budget (and sometimes entertaining) shows. Like the Access Network. Neutral. I'd be okay with my tax dollars subsidizing that, so that fledgling young wannabe tv producers have a place to air their creations.

I'm not ok with my tax dollars paying to further the cause of a political party (or ideology). That is CLEARLY a conflict of interest.

Get it?

But how do you ensure it's neutral without monitoring?

Do you mandate from its inception that it broadcasts no commentary of any kind, nor shows any material that has any political aspect?