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

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Goriders

Maybe. But that happens everyday.

There hasn’t been unbiased media in north america for decades.

Then it shouldn't be very hard to provide a few examples?


Most of us are agreeing there is some degree of bias across the board. It takes an awful lot of hubris to point out the CBC as being particularly egregious.

[taxbuster]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

How did he get elected?

About 33% of the voters did so. Gerrymandering means they are split mostly in to clustered urban ridings and have a tight grip on changes. Cons are mostly in Alberta and more sparsely populated rural areas.

That's not a "majority" and he didn't get one. But there are supporters.

I personally wish the entire damned group of all parties would get together, agree on the goals that they see in common and actually get good things accomplished, even if not 100% what everybody wants. I'm tired of self-serving Pols telling us how wonderful they are and accomplishing absolutely nothing. Doesn't matter what level of government.

[Rutuu]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

Then it shouldn't be very hard to provide a few examples?


Most of us are agreeing there is some degree of bias across the board. It takes an awful lot of hubris to point out the CBC as being particularly egregious.

I always find it a bit insulting that people that yell "biased", don't give me the reader the benefit of the doubt, to tease the facts of the story out, and come up with my own opinion. Personally I think everyone is reasonably smart out there.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by taxbuster

About 33% of the voters did so. Gerrymandering means they are split mostly in to clustered urban ridings and have a tight grip on changes. Cons are mostly in Alberta and more sparsely populated rural areas.

That's not a "majority" and he didn't get one. But there are supporters.

I personally wish the entire damned group of all parties would get together, agree on the goals that they see in common and actually get good things accomplished, even if not 100% what everybody wants. I'm tired of self-serving Pols telling us how wonderful they are and accomplishing absolutely nothing. Doesn't matter what level of government.

Please don't apply this term to Canada(unless you are a time traveler from before the 1960's). We have an independent commissions that sets boundaries. The US allows their political parties to do it. These are in no way the same thing, and you undermine our democracy by suggesting it is occurring in Canada.


https://www.vox.com/2014/4/15/560428...ow-to-fix-them

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by Goriders

It’s a propaganda wing.

So that’s the slant in Kim’s Convenience. I was always unsure. Thanks for clearing that up.

[Calgary '89]

CBC receives over $1B/year in taxpayer money so I think it's easy to agree that they should be as neutral as Reuters when it comes to news.


Back to arena talk, does anyone know about case studies of AEG or AGM Arena Management and how they get involved with cities? I'm curious to see how that type of company would enter an Arena negotiation.

[GioforPM]

Nm

[Goriders]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

Then it shouldn't be very hard to provide a few examples?


Most of us are agreeing there is some degree of bias across the board. It takes an awful lot of hubris to point out the CBC as being particularly egregious.

They aren’t. If you’re from Salt Spring Island or Nelson.

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by Goriders

They aren’t. If you’re from Salt Spring Island or Nelson.

So no examples then?

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Wormius

So no examples then?

Just trolling at this point.

[Calgary '89]

Originally Posted by Wormius

So no examples then?

If you really need examples just read some of the examples presented in the Tara Henley article on why she left the CBC. You can also look up videos of Rosemary Barton interviewing JT and just fawning over him like teenagers do with pop stars.

If you need more examples I'd say read multiple sources for news and draw comparisons. If you still need more then you're on your own.

[Wormius]

Holy moly. I just wanted examples about the freaking arena deal.

Also… the Tara Henley thing seems a bit debunked also.

[Calgary '89]

Originally Posted by Wormius

Holy moly. I just wanted examples about the freaking arena deal.

Also… the Tara Henley thing seems a bit debunked also.

Lol sorry man.

I read someone saying the Henley article wasn't legit cuz it was put up on a smaller platform but none of what she claimed was false. Her opinions can be argued but that's pretty much the case for anyones opinion on anything.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Calgary '89

Back to arena talk, does anyone know about case studies of AEG or AGM Arena Management and how they get involved with cities? I'm curious to see how that type of company would enter an Arena negotiation.

I think I posted briefly about this before, but I think the Stampede may be one of [if not the main] 3rd party being hinted at here.

My "insider" info is long out of date, but there are a number of dots to connect here that could make a lot of sense, even if ultimately it ends up as a leverage play to make CSEC bargain in good faith.

Simple reasons it makes sense...Stampede has:
- an existing relationship with Ticketmaster/Livenation (in multiple capacities - selling their own productions like rodeo/evening show, serving as promoter for concerts (Stampede time and a few other examples), and operating multiple venues for other promoters
- obvious efficiencies in operations and staffing for concessions, security, parking, building ops, custodial, etc.
- existing year-round sales and events team - there is a lot to unpack here, but adding even more inventory of concourses, hosting spaces, and the seating bowl could present some very interesting revenue opportunities
- there's a lot more that's hard to articulate succinctly...down to general calendars and daily event flows


The interesting scenario here is if the city+Stampede could come up with a sensible plan, setting them up to charge CSEC fair market rates as a tenant. CSEC is confronted with losing a lot of peripheral revenue opportunities and general control. The city is delivering a new building, which makes it a lot harder for CSEC to play the relocation card (not to mention the relocation fee)...

If CSEC doesn't like it (spoiler alert: they won't), their main options would be:
1. To sell...which opens up a lot of suitors who may just want into the pro sports club, without necessarily taking on the concert promotion game, nor a lot of the aforementioned operational stuff.
2. Come back to the bargaining table with a more competitive offer...

[Beatle17]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

I think I posted briefly about this before, but I think the Stampede may be one of [if not the main] 3rd party being hinted at here.

My "insider" info is long out of date, but there are a number of dots to connect here that could make a lot of sense, even if ultimately it ends up as a leverage play to make CSEC bargain in good faith.

Simple reasons it makes sense...Stampede has:
- an existing relationship with Ticketmaster/Livenation (in multiple capacities - selling their own productions like rodeo/evening show, serving as promoter for concerts (Stampede time and a few other examples), and operating multiple venues for other promoters
- obvious efficiencies in operations and staffing for concessions, security, parking, building ops, custodial, etc.
- existing year-round sales and events team - there is a lot to unpack here, but adding even more inventory of concourses, hosting spaces, and the seating bowl could present some very interesting revenue opportunities
- there's a lot more that's hard to articulate succinctly...down to general calendars and daily event flows


The interesting scenario here is if the city+Stampede could come up with a sensible plan, setting them up to charge CSEC fair market rates as a tenant. CSEC is confronted with losing a lot of peripheral revenue opportunities and general control. The city is delivering a new building, which makes it a lot harder for CSEC to play the relocation card (not to mention the relocation fee)...

If CSEC doesn't like it (spoiler alert: they won't), their main options would be:
1. To sell...which opens up a lot of suitors who may just want into the pro sports club, without necessarily taking on the concert promotion game, nor a lot of the aforementioned operational stuff.
2. Come back to the bargaining table with a more competitive offer...

Name 2

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Calgary '89

Lol sorry man.

I read someone saying the Henley article wasn't legit cuz it was put up on a smaller platform but none of what she claimed was false. Her opinions can be argued but that's pretty much the case for anyones opinion on anything.

I had never heard of her but I just read this article
https://nationalpost.com/opinion/tar...i-quit-the-cbc

in which she failed to cite (m)any specific examples (just like the trolls in this thread.)...the closest she came:

When I started at the national public broadcaster in 2013, the network produced some of the best journalism in the country. By the time I resigned last month, it embodied some of the worst trends in mainstream media. In a short period of time, the CBC went from being a trusted source of news to churning out clickbait that reads like a parody of the student press.

There is plenty to be critical of the CBC about, and this is right up there. As she acknowledges, it is a wider media trend, and it certainly is a shame that CBC has followed suit.

People want to know why, for example, non-binary Filipinos concerned about a lack of LGBT terms in Tagalog is an editorial priority for the CBC, when local issues of broad concern go unreported. Or why our pop culture radio show’s coverage of the Dave Chappelle Netflix special failed to include any of the legions of fans, or comics, that did not find it offensive. Or why, exactly, taxpayers should be funding articles that scold Canadians for using words such as “brainstorm” and “lame.”

Filipinos are the 4th largest visible minority at 780k+...that story actually sounds mildly interesting. No examples of what is going unreported though.

I presume she means Q (or q?). Not really under the 'news' category, but they are definitely capable of producing crappy segments. #roasted.

And...what was that about clickbait? I had to google that one...first result took me to an alt-right website, but thankfully they linked me to the CBC Ottowa article in question (without linking to the site in question, that was their titled hyperlink).

I haven't read the whole thing yet (don't feel scolded yet, either), but I will tomorrow. It's actually damn interesting to hear the etymology of some of these terms

NSFW!

Brainstorm and lame do feel like a bit of a stretch, but it wasn't that long ago that we would have scoffed at an article like this with words like ####### and ##### and ######## or ##### ###### #########



So ya...none of what she claimed is false because she didn't actually make any substantial claims...but don't take it from me, this article explains how Leaving a writing job in a huff to join the truth warriors of the newsletteratti has worked well for so many

[calgaryred]

Wow this thread got derailed

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Beatle17

Name 2

Pattison
Chip Wilson
Garret Camp
Southern
Mannix
Shaws

Only one way to find out.

[FlamesAddiction]

I don't know the process they used for this, but this chart has CBC leaning to the middle-left (not extreme left), while being highly factual.

It looks like they lean about as far left as the Calgary Herald does to the right (although both are considered highly factual).



From the Association of Media Literacy. I don't really know the source personally, so I can't vouch for it.

https://aml.ca/the-bias-in-media-bias-charts/

[Calgary '89]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

I had never heard of her but I just read this article
https://nationalpost.com/opinion/tar...i-quit-the-cbc

in which she failed to cite (m)any specific examples (just like the trolls in this thread.)...the closest she came:




There is plenty to be critical of the CBC about, and this is right up there. As she acknowledges, it is a wider media trend, and it certainly is a shame that CBC has followed suit.




Filipinos are the 4th largest visible minority at 780k+...that story actually sounds mildly interesting. No examples of what is going unreported though.

I presume she means Q (or q?). Not really under the 'news' category, but they are definitely capable of producing crappy segments. #roasted.

And...what was that about clickbait? I had to google that one...first result took me to an alt-right website, but thankfully they linked me to the CBC Ottowa article in question (without linking to the site in question, that was their titled hyperlink).

I haven't read the whole thing yet (don't feel scolded yet, either), but I will tomorrow. It's actually damn interesting to hear the etymology of some of these terms

NSFW!

Brainstorm and lame do feel like a bit of a stretch, but it wasn't that long ago that we would have scoffed at an article like this with words like ####### and ##### and ######## or ##### ###### #########



So ya...none of what she claimed is false because she didn't actually make any substantial claims...but don't take it from me, this article explains how Leaving a writing job in a huff to join the truth warriors of the newsletteratti has worked well for so many

I said it before, opinions can be discussed and her article is primarily her opinion on what is happening at the CBC. I'd love her to cite exact and specific examples of where CBC gets it wrong but there's also too many things to consider while 'going after' your former employer.

To me what really stood out was this:

"It is to pretend that the “woke” worldview is near universal — even if it is far from popular with those you know, and speak to, and interview, and read.

To work at the CBC now is to accept the idea that race is the most significant thing about a person, and that some races are more relevant to the public conversation than others. It is, in my newsroom, to fill out racial profile forms for every guest you book; to actively book more people of some races and less of others."

That's basically what Breitbart and OAN does but on the other side of the spectrum.

What I gleaned from the Henley article was that in her view this News Institution used to be revered and that now it's shifted so much from purely informative to biased or even agenda-driven. She actually seems disappointed/heartbroken to me.

I don't mind if a news organization picks a side, I don't even mind if they make more money from advertisers because of it. The main problem for me is that the CBC are in very very large part funded by taxpayer money.

You can't be taking friendly selfies with the PM cuz you like him or air a controversial story where you only interview people who didn't agree with Dave Chappelle, for example. That's right out of the Fox News or CNBC playbook and I expect better from the CBC.


I'll read the Gawker article you shared too. Thanks man.