Only you would selectively chose to criticize the CBC for not wanting to disclose salary information while remaining quiet as a church mouse about the Harper government gutting the bill you refer to (leading to Rathgebers's resignation) to avoid disclosing his civil servants salaries.
Shouldn't you be aiming your rapier wit at Harper et al as well?
Someone less polite than me might accuse you of being a hyprocrite because of your lack of consistancy on this issue.
Really? That is your proof? A book by a known conservative writer who is known to have unhealthy fixation with CBC and a news report where the journalist even says at the end of the piece that the Liberals were accused of the same thing at the end of the video?
I did not provide proof of bias, I provided simple first hit examples on the subject of liberal bias (as a result of someone posting they could find nothing).
In other words, only a total fool could not figure this out by either watching the show or simply using google.
CBC is the equivalent of Fox, only opposite ends of the spectrum.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Nage Waza For This Useful Post:
To add something worthwhile: Fox news consistently hits among the lowest on the fact checking sites. The majority of their programs are commentary and 'spin' related guests instead of actual news and reports. It is nowhere near the level of CBC by a mile.
You may not like the CBC but it's absolutely insane to compare it to Fox. Being right or left has nothing to do with it. They are closer to entertainment than news. Their just horrible journalists, if you even want to use that word.
What the CBC should focus on is the debunking of junk science. Vaccines, anti gmo, climate change etc. they should produce hard science documentarys based on fact instead of fear. One of the biggest threats right now is the populist pseudo science that rios through social media and the fear mongering media.
The CBC should be working to produce programming, no private network does it, and it would be in the best interest of canadians.
Given the Conservatives' War on Science, if CBC did that they'd probably lose all the funding they have left.
In other words, only a total fool could not figure this out by either watching the show...
So it is your contention that those of us who watch CBC and do not think it biased are "total fools"?
Quote:
CBC is the equivalent of Fox, only opposite ends of the spectrum.
You find anything REMOTELY like that from CBC and I'll concede your point. I bet you can't find anything even close to that partisan. Because it doesn't exist.
There are many examples, easy to research. From what I understand, website was not discredited as an example.
It certainly was discredited as an example of bias:
Quote:
Vote Compass faced criticism during the federal election campaign for an alleged Liberal bias. The accusation was first made by Kathy Brock, an associate professor of political science at Queen's University, who noted that one could provide identical responses to each proposition in Vote Compass (i.e. answer "strongly agree" to all propositions or "strongly disagree" to all propositions) and would in each case be positioned closest to the Liberal Party in the results.[7][8] The claim was debunked by the media[9][10][11][12] and directly addressed by Vote Compass representatives, who noted that the propositions in the application are specifically constructed in such a way as to avoid acquiescence bias and that the result described by Brock was arrived at by gaming the system.[13] Vote Compass also released analyses of the data it gathered from the federal election,[14] which have further negated efforts to discredit it.[15][16] It is widely speculated that suspicions of bias were fuelled by Sun Media in an effort to promote its anti-CBC agenda and the concurrent launch of its cable news channel.[17][18][19] The criticism appears to have been isolated to the 2011 Canadian federal election edition of Vote Compass and has not been noted in any subsequent editions.[20]
Not that the sources are not biased themselves, but I could not find the same regarding the CBC being biased against the Liberals. If there was no bias against the right, why the complaints?
And voila:
Quote:
The ex-head of English services, Richard Stursberg, writes in The Tower of Babble: Sins, Secrets and Successes Inside the CBC (Douglas & McIntyre) that he briefed “one of the Most Powerful Ministers in the Conservative government” about an extensive arm's-length “Fairness and Balance” study.
“Remarkably, the results showed that the CBC not only allocated more time to the Conservatives than either Global or CTV, but we tended to treat them more positively as well,” Stursberg writes. “This, for me, was unexpected.”
In preparing the report, ERIN Research retained five academic media researchers to examine a 25-week sample of news in the 2009–10 season. This included 6,000 radio news stories, 7,500 television stories, and 2,400 stories on the Internet.
The study revealed that the CBC's national newscast devoted 69 percent of the speaking time for parliamentarians to Conservative MPs and only 31 percent to opposition politicians over the period.
The National's chief rival, CTV National News, granted 61 percent of the speaking time to Conservative MPs, whereas Global allocated 54 percent to politicians on the government side and 46 percent to the opposition parties.
__________________
"Life of Russian hockey veterans is very hard," said Soviet hockey star Sergei Makarov. "Most of them don't have enough to eat these days. These old players are Russian legends."
Location: Wondering when # became hashtag and not a number sign.
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by longsuffering
Only you would selectively chose to criticize the CBC for not wanting to disclose salary information while remaining quiet as a church mouse about the Harper government gutting the bill you refer to (leading to Rathgebers's resignation) to avoid disclosing his civil servants salaries.
Shouldn't you be aiming your rapier wit at Harper et al as well?
Someone less polite than me might accuse you of being a hyprocrite because of your lack of consistancy on this issue.
You just may want to read that thread about Rathgeber and then get back to me about all this.
Beyond that, I will comment on what I wish, when I wish and all without your approval.
So it is your contention that those of us who watch CBC and do not think it biased are "total fools"?
Well, yah basically. The Sun is right, Fox is right, Globe and Mail left, CBC left, Toronto Star left, National Post right etc. Fool is probably not the correct term either, I took it from the "fool to believe" saying.
Of course Fox is more blatant with their so called reporting (I am not a fan), but CBC is often just as bad. The key difference is Fox is not directly supported via taxes. They sell whatever makes a profit. They can and will do whatever increases viewers so that they can increase ad revenue. The 'innocence' of news has been dead for a while, it is becoming increasingly difficult to find any one network/paper that attempts to report the facts without leaning in some direction.
I don't care where one leans as long as my taxes didn't pay for it.
It is not like I am inventing the concept of media bias either, should be first year curriculum (but I doubt it is anymore). In the early 90s (first year law class) they made us write all of our papers from a left wing and feminist perspective. University campuses are increasingly being pointed at as having a bias, often to the left.
Well, yah basically. The Sun is right, Fox is right, Globe and Mail left, CBC left, Toronto Star left, National Post right etc. Fool is probably not the correct term either, I took it from the "fool to believe" saying.
Of course Fox is more blatant with their so called reporting (I am not a fan), but CBC is often just as bad. The key difference is Fox is not directly supported via taxes. They sell whatever makes a profit. They can and will do whatever increases viewers so that they can increase ad revenue. The 'innocence' of news has been dead for a while, it is becoming increasingly difficult to find any one network/paper that attempts to report the facts without leaning in some direction.
I don't care where one leans as long as my taxes didn't pay for it.
It is not like I am inventing the concept of media bias either, should be first year curriculum (but I doubt it is anymore). In the early 90s (first year law class) they made us write all of our papers from a left wing and feminist perspective. University campuses are increasingly being pointed at as having a bias, often to the left.
It is not like I am inventing the concept of media bias either
No one suggested that you did.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nage Waza
In the early 90s (first year law class) they made us write all of our papers from a left wing and feminist perspective.
As an aside, I am not aware of any Canadian law school that has ever asked first year students to write critical legal studies papers. These days, most law schools don't offer many, if any, critical legal theory classes (law schools have become technical schools for the most part.) Those sorts of classes are generally undergraduate social science classes.
__________________
"Life of Russian hockey veterans is very hard," said Soviet hockey star Sergei Makarov. "Most of them don't have enough to eat these days. These old players are Russian legends."
As an aside, I am not aware of any Canadian law school that has ever asked first year students to write critical legal studies papers. These days, most law schools don't offer many, if any, critical legal theory classes (law schools have become technical schools for the most part.) Those sorts of classes are generally undergraduate social science classes.
I have never heard of a law school that has such a class for 1st year students. As you said, very few offer such course for even 2L and 3L students.
__________________
When you do a signature and don't attribute it to anyone, it's yours. - Vulcan
As an aside, I am not aware of any Canadian law school that has ever asked first year students to write critical legal studies papers. These days, most law schools don't offer many, if any, critical legal theory classes (law schools have become technical schools for the most part.) Those sorts of classes are generally undergraduate social science classes.
That was first year law, not in law school. The fact I had a chance to write a paper was great, but only if it fit the profs point of view. Every paper was like that and it literally made me not become a lawyer.
That was first year law, not in law school. The fact I had a chance to write a paper was great, but only if it fit the profs point of view. Every paper was like that and it literally made me not become a lawyer.
Of the many reasons to not become a lawyer that is definitely the weirdest one I've ever heard. A professor in an undergraduate legal theory class requiring you to write from a viewpoint you didn't agree with was that influential?
__________________
When you do a signature and don't attribute it to anyone, it's yours. - Vulcan
That was first year law, not in law school. The fact I had a chance to write a paper was great, but only if it fit the profs point of view. Every paper was like that and it literally made me not become a lawyer.
I think that, at the time, you confused "an exercise in critical analysis" with "indoctrination". Feminist critical analysis is simply analyzing a subject (in this case, legal institutions) from the perspective of gender politics. Marxist critical analysis (which I presume is what you erroneously referred to as "left wing") is, similarly, analyzing a subject from the perspective of class politics.
I suspect that you were free to make whatever value judgments, if any, about your conclusions that you saw fit. For instance, if you concluded that legal institutions tend to serve the interests of the ruling elite (as many critical theorists have), you might argue that this is good for society or just (according to some Ayn-Randian theory of justice, for example).
In any event, as valo points out, by failing to research what attending law school or being a lawyer is remotely about, you really dodged a bullet. I wouldn't lose any sleep over it (God knows that I lose plenty of sleep because I did not dodge that particular bullet.)
__________________
"Life of Russian hockey veterans is very hard," said Soviet hockey star Sergei Makarov. "Most of them don't have enough to eat these days. These old players are Russian legends."
The Following User Says Thank You to Makarov For This Useful Post:
Location: In a land without pants, or war, or want. But mostly we care about the pants.
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by valo403
You know where your taxes won't pay for anything? Somalia.
They are really building something special over there. They are like the Oilers of of the UN: sure they are in last place among countries by any and all objective measures for now, but a libertarian utopia needs more time to develop, like a measly century or two. They keep chugging along with no taxes, no government, nobody limiting your freedom to do whatever you want... one day it'll all coalesce and the Somalians who moved over here will look like fools for ever wanting to leave.
PS: the rest of the internet uses car analogies, we should be forced to use hockey ones.
__________________
Better educated sadness than oblivious joy.
The Following User Says Thank You to jammies For This Useful Post:
They are really building something special over there. They are like the Oilers of of the UN: sure they are in last place among countries by any and all objective measures for now, but a libertarian utopia needs more time to develop, like a measly century or two. They keep chugging along with no taxes, no government, nobody limiting your freedom to do whatever you want... one day it'll all coalesce and the Somalians who moved over here will look like fools for ever wanting to leave.
PS: the rest of the internet uses car analogies, we should be forced to use hockey ones.
Hmm jammies talking out of his a$$ again.
Libertarian utopia? Only people oblivious to what "libertarian" means can claim Somalia is (getting) anywhere close.
Anyway, as for the bolded part (study from 2008, feel free to dig up something more up to date):
Although all African data, and Somali
data in particular, should be treated with caution, this paper’s main contribution to the literature has been to compare
Somalia’s living standards to those of 41 other sub-Saharan African countries both before and after the collapse of the
national government. We find that Somalia’s living standards have generally improved and that they compare relatively
favorably with many existing African states. Importantly, we find that Somali living standards have often improved, not
just in absolute terms, but also relative to other African countries since the collapse of the Somali central government.
So reading the first source on the wikipedia article on vote compass actually confirms the liberal bias in the poll.
Quote:
But Vote Compass undoubtedly puts users who like to fall within the soft middle—”neither agree nor disagree”—into the Liberal fold.
So instead of neither agree or disagree just not counting because you are not passionate about an issue it makes you liberal. Dont know and neither agree or disagree should have zero affect on your result. It also doesnt measure passion about an issue. So if you have one very important issue and a bunch of issues you dont care about your issue you are passionate about are dwarfed by the issues you dont care about.
Also none of the references in the wikipedia article prove there is no bias even the article entitled "CBC survey isn't biased" only tests the system by
Quote:
Unlike Queen's University political science Prof. Kathy Brock, who blindly answered all 30 questions the same way using three different approaches, a member of the Herald's editorial board carefully read the questions and answered each as a rightleaning conservative might respond.
Presto, he was aligned with the Conservative party, first try.
Next, he carefully answered each question as a Liberal might, and came out Liberal. He then posed as a separatist and came out as supporting the BQ. He got lumped in with the Liberals when he tried to answer NDP, but on a second try, was correctly placed in Jack Layton's camp.
I think that, at the time, you confused "an exercise in critical analysis" with "indoctrination". Feminist critical analysis is simply analyzing a subject (in this case, legal institutions) from the perspective of gender politics. Marxist critical analysis (which I presume is what you erroneously referred to as "left wing") is, similarly, analyzing a subject from the perspective of class politics.
I suspect that you were free to make whatever value judgments, if any, about your conclusions that you saw fit. For instance, if you concluded that legal institutions tend to serve the interests of the ruling elite (as many critical theorists have), you might argue that this is good for society or just (according to some Ayn-Randian theory of justice, for example).
In any event, as valo points out, by failing to research what attending law school or being a lawyer is remotely about, you really dodged a bullet. I wouldn't lose any sleep over it (God knows that I lose plenty of sleep because I did not dodge that particular bullet.)
Sorry, that is not what occurred at all. And I have no idea why you might think I failed to research what law school was about, I specifically didn't like what the profs in several classes were trying to convince students of. Law was not the field for me either way, I was passionate about something else and I have been fortunate to utilize those skills for the last nearly 20 years.
Sorry, that is not what occurred at all. And I have no idea why you might think I failed to research what law school was about, I specifically didn't like what the profs in several classes were trying to convince students of. Law was not the field for me either way, I was passionate about something else and I have been fortunate to utilize those skills for the last nearly 20 years.
What, you took issue with utilizing the bundle of sticks approach to describe the concept of property rights? Didn't agree with the duty of care standards laid about by the courts? Didn't agree with the eggshell skull doctrine? You probably made the right choice though, I went to school with people, and had professors, who had views that ranged to every extreme of the spectrum, but the only ones who had any success were able to process opposing views, analyze those positions and provide intelligent responses, as opposed to just rejecting it as indoctrination.
__________________
When you do a signature and don't attribute it to anyone, it's yours. - Vulcan
What, you took issue with utilizing the bundle of sticks approach to describe the concept of property rights? Didn't agree with the duty of care standards laid about by the courts? Didn't agree with the eggshell skull doctrine? You probably made the right choice though, I went to school with people, and had professors, who had views that ranged to every extreme of the spectrum, but the only ones who had any success were able to process opposing views, analyze those positions and provide intelligent responses, as opposed to just rejecting it as indoctrination.
Actually it appears to be you who cannot stand opposing views and you who without any facts can read minds over the Internet. You are wrong.
I had a prof who I thought crossed the line in regards to abortion and I did not like the fact people who were against were told they were wrong, end of story. I was pro choice, yet disgusted by some of what I saw regarding the bias againt pro lifers. You see the results today, you are either pro choice or basically an outcast. I saw similar things in other areas as well. And wouldn't you know it, I was not the only person to notice and we now see assorted coverage of this.
Anyway, I preferred the sciences, and even there you can see blatant attempts to trivialize counter arguments.
