[News Roundup] CSEC/City arena deal UPDATED: Third Party Facilitator

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by Calgary '89

I read it and she actually gives 3 examples, the Chappelle piece, mandatory vaxx story and the trouble in booking a coloured conservative like Jamil Jivani. She complains that there's 2 Covid stories per day and less coverage on the wealth gap and opioid crisis as well, so chalk that up to a general complaint about for-profit news outlets these days. CBC isn't for-profit.

She also talks about how subtlety . You really can't ignore nuance in any of these 'hit piece' type of articles cuz it's really about grey area instead of white and black.

Other than repeating what she said in her article, it reads like she just handled the reporters "gotcha" questions which is something reporters do. We just saw Jim Matheson do the same thing with Leon Draistaitl.

If you need proof after proof that her opinion is real, I dunno what to tell you.

To me her opinion sounds in line with the stuff that's talked about in Real Time on HBO. For everything extra about Bill Maher, he does make strong points about how illiberal liberalism is these days.

You identify three things:
1) Chappelle story
2) Vaccines
3) Jamil Javani

The host pushes here on all three:

Henley: The examples in the piece that I think really matter are the Dave Chappelle example and also the vaccine mandates. Those are two stories where I really didn’t see an appetite, and I just didn’t see a lot of opposing views on those.

Brown: Did you work on those stories?

Henley: On Ontario Morning, no, we did not work on the Dave Chappelle story. The vaccine mandates, I absolutely worked on that story.

Brown: And what was forbidden speech on the vaccine mandates?

Henley: It’s not about forbidden speech. This is not how it works.

Brown: Or forbidden arguments or forbidden guests?

Henley: I’m not saying I’m being censored. That is not what I’m saying at all.

Brown: But you are saying in your piece that certain ideas were not welcome, and you just told me certain guests were not welcome.

So she had nothing to do with Chappelle story. There was no forbidden speech about vaccines.

Brown: You tried to get Jamil Jivani on the air, and you were told no?

Henley: It’s not how it works at all. It’s the conversations about who we’re gonna talk to and who we’re not gonna to talk to. This stuff is very subtle, and it’s also something that I think that the audiences can pick up on immediately. I’m not arguing that we should not cover identity stories. What I’m arguing is that we need to increase the perspectives that we are showing and that we are talking about.

And she never tried to get Jamil Javani on air.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

Pattison
Chip Wilson
Garret Camp
Southern
Mannix
Shaws

Only one way to find out.

Pattison and Wilson live in Vancouver, and have done for many years. I'm gonna bet they would not have any interest. Camp lives in San Fran.

I don't think anyone is seriously interested in a deal without an arena anyway. They'll all look at Katz and say "I want the same".

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by Calgary '89

Lol from the CBC to Fox News... I guess we'll just ignore nuance.


You can probably ask those questions to Tara Henley directly on Twitter if you like, she might even answer.

For me the question is how does airing a piece on Chappelle where you only interview 1 side of the argument not show bias? That's what Fox News does cuz they only cater to a specific audience. CBC is better than that, I thought.

Again, nothing wrong with a news network or media platform picking a side. It's sometimes unfortunate but it's much better than state TV like so many countries around the world have. CBC is publicly funded so scrutiny should be higher.

what is the nuance. her comments in the interview show she was looking for a different perspective in news. She doesnt want to see race (using MLK), says "birthing persons" is pervasive (google birthing persons and see what "news" sites come up). Wants the opposing perspective on a Chappelle article (it's not like CBC was calling for Chappelle's head)

What about her use of "radicalized political agenda" reveals her interest in actual balanced coverage?

Ok, sorry for sensationalizing using fox news. Perhaps the NatPo is her M.O. as she posted her resignation letter on there.

[Calgary '89]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

What was the bias in the piece above? I didn't hear any scolding or condemnation (beyond the take that the jokes weren't funny)

You also didn't hear from anyone who wasn't offended by it, so 15 minutes of how insensitive and dangerous it is to joke about this particular minority. That's not balanced or nuanced man. There's also claims that a pregnant woman lost her job for starting a walkout when it was revealed that people who lost their jobs at Netflix lost them because they broke their contracts by publicizing internal data. No mention of that in the piece.

I'm all for acceptance and I'm honestly not bothered by what makes people different but when CBC's not telling the whole story then credibility is lost.

I do think they missed an opportunity to interview 1 or 2 Canadian comedians who could maybe shed some light on the world of comedy too.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Pattison and Wilson live in Vancouver, and have done for many years. I'm gonna bet they would not have any interest. Camp lives in San Fran.

I don't think anyone is seriously interested in a deal without an arena anyway. They'll all look at Katz and say "I want the same".

Pattison moved the Vancouver Blazers to Calgary to become the Cowboys. Of course, at this point we'd be talking about his kid(s). Save-On has expanded quite successfully into Alberta over the last decade or two...they even took over the "Score and win" promotion from Safeway.

Chip Wilson is a UCalgary grad. Not many ties here anymore AFAIK, not be he is still in the athletic apparel/equipment world (albeit more outdoorsy). Who knows, maybe he buys RCR from Murray at the same time, since that must be a real headache for him, too.


My point is that Murray isn't a unicorn...

[Calgary '89]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

You identify three things:
1) Chappelle story
2) Vaccines
3) Jamil Javani

The host pushes here on all three:


So she had nothing to do with Chappelle story. There was no forbidden speech about vaccines.



And she never tried to get Jamil Javani on air.

I pointed out 3 things after you said she shows zero evidence. The host pushes on the topics by putting words in her mouth to which she says "this is not how it works". It reminded me of a softer version of the Kathy Newman interview to Dr. Peterson. Good on the reporter for pressing but be responsible too.

You can't just dismiss her opinions cuz a reporter goes after her in his own words. She has to say again and again that what she dealt with at CBC came across very subtle.

The fact that people are ready to brush this woman off cuz she's not providing a bullet point list of everything that's wrong at the CBC is IMO a sad sign of the times we live in man. Disagreement turns combative and tribal in a snap and it's not useful.


Anyway, my apologies to anyone who's on this thread for arena talk. This is my last point on the side topic.

Thank you all for your patience.

[Jordan!]

I have absolutely no idea wth is happening in this thread anymore.

Facts:

-CSEC wanted an off ramp and got it
-City of Calgary wanted an off ramp and also got it

/thread

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Jordan!

I have absolutely no idea wth is happening in this thread anymore.

Facts:

-CSEC wanted an off ramp and got it
-City of Calgary wanted an off ramp and also got it

/thread

The CoC didn't want an off ramp, they were fine with the deal that existed up until CSEC bailed late December. How is that a fact? Where did you get that from?

[Jordan!]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

The CoC didn't want an off ramp, they were fine with the deal that existed up until CSEC bailed late December. How is that a fact? Where did you get that from?

It's pretty obvious, they didn't put up any fight. Ok CSEC take your ball and go home? Really?

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Jordan!

It's pretty obvious, they didn't put up any fight. Ok CSEC take your ball and go home? Really?

Caving on the 6.4M was no small concession...should the city of just kep conceding indefinitely?

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Jordan!

It's pretty obvious, they didn't put up any fight. Ok CSEC take your ball and go home? Really?

Explain how that would have worked in a way that would have kept CSEC interested when they have since claimed "other costs" were a reason for pulling out, and in a way that doesn't leave the city paying an ever-increasing amount.

There was no fight to put up. CSEC didn't say "we'd like to renegotiate the deal we agreed to", they said "we are out".

It's kind of amazing watching people ignore facts to craft a narrative. This wasn't a "both sides" thing, it was one side callnig it a day.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Jordan!

It's pretty obvious, they didn't put up any fight. Ok CSEC take your ball and go home? Really?

What was there to fight? CSEC wanted out and had the contractual ability to do so.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

Caving on the 6.4M was no small concession...should the city of just kep conceding indefinitely?

"Yes"
- someone from out of town

[carmenshoes]

So what happens next do they go back to the drawing board?

[getbak]

Originally Posted by carmenshoes

So what happens next do they go back to the drawing board?

The Event Centre Assessment Committee is being re-formed and they have been tasked with seeking out any potential funding partners who might want to work with the City on seeing this project go forward.

They are expected to report back to Council in early March and we'll have a better idea of what the options are at that point.

[burn_this_city]

Makes me wonder how many of these shrewd negotiators are the types that pay full sticker plus all the nonsense fees when they buy a car. Salesman said there was a bunch of other people looking at it, so I was worried it would be gone.

[Jordan!]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

Caving on the 6.4M was no small concession...should the city of just kep conceding indefinitely?

$6 million is peanuts in the grand scheme for either party. This was an easy exit for both sides. How are you not seeing that?

[burn_this_city]

Originally Posted by Jordan!

$6 million is peanuts in the grand scheme for either party. This was an easy exit for both sides. How are you not seeing that?

It wasn't peanuts to CSEC evidently, how do you not see that?

[Strange Brew]

It's great that the City is looking for another funding partner. Now that partner will be looking to make money from this, and I doubt the city will be giving up tax revenues. So that money will come from operating the arena, which is what CSEC wants.

As someone else said, they want the Katz deal. NHL teams that operate an arena are worth far more than those who don't.

So this is a tactic by the City. It makes sense, it's leverage for them.

CSEC can pay market rent for a new arena or accept the deal that was on the table. Option A is better for the city, but you need a willing tenant.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Jordan!

$6 million is peanuts in the grand scheme for either party. This was an easy exit for both sides. How are you not seeing that?

The city is continuing to explore possibilities to move the project forward...

CSEC is presumably redirecting their free time towards getting those PortPass investigations done...

Since Murray is a pretty big player in the NHL, he also probably already knows that the Coyotes are relocating this summer, so he thinks his relocation threat will seem a lot more real if he waits until that happens before he comes back to the table.