Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« What if the shoe was on the other foot? | Main | Lu Decheng is safe in Canada »

Wednesday, April 12, 2006

This CBC reporter is restless

Keith Boag of the CBC reported on the Conservative government's unvailing of the much anticipated Federal Accountability Act.  However, before Boag outlined the details of the new legislation, he made an effort to inform the Canadian public (on our dime) how tough his job has become.

And that it's Stephen Harper's fault

(includes bonus footage of obvious CBC bias)

Posted by Stephen Taylor on April 12, 2006 | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200d834b7817169e2

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference This CBC reporter is restless:

Comments

If he doesn't like his job, then he should quit. However, it would be best if Harper eliminated the CBC altogether, firing everyone, selling whatever can be moved for scrap, and destroying the buildings. The CBC no longer serves any rational purpose. They supported 9/11, denied the Holocaust and supported the Nazis (Valor and the Horror) and have made a mockery of the concept of a free media.

Get rid of it now and forever.

Posted by: Scott | 2006-04-12 8:12:47 AM


Keith Boag is a walking commercial for eveything that is wrong at the CBC. He hasn't had an original idea in a decade, his soporific musings on the insider's Ottawa are laughable and he trumpets some pompous title like chief political correspondent.

He should be sent to Charlottetown or Yellowknife for a few years just so he can realize that the world does not revolve around Ottawa.

Posted by: David | 2006-04-12 8:54:39 AM


While I do like Steven Harper, I want to say this:

First of all, Keith Boag is a POLYTICAL ANALYST, his job is not to come up with 'original' ideas, but to comment and analyze ideas and deeds of others, namely our politicians. As for Steven Harper's briefing ways, just read the national press - Keith Boag is not the only one asking for improvement.

I don't agree on CBC either. I think they do a good job on national news reports every day, especially on their documentaries. They are sometimes the only ones to do important investigations, which nobody else dares to attempt (such as a case of a professor of a Canadian university who for years faked scientific results, and if not for CBC he would keep doing it, or the recent staggering cancer documentary). Some CBC shows, such as 'The Fifth Estate', are simply outstanding examples of great journalism. Some shows,"The Tournament", for example", are a lot of fun, not to mention humour shows on Fridays etc. I certainly don't regret at all, that some of my taxes go to support CBC, because they have a lot of talented journalists and many informative products.

I think our CBC journalists are professional and adequate, thanks goodness that we don't have anyone like Coulter and other Fox travelling circus exhibits!

Posted by: Acer | 2006-04-12 9:14:21 AM


While I do like Steven Harper, I want to say this:

First of all, Keith Boag is a POLYTICAL ANALYST, his job is not to come up with 'original' ideas, but to comment and analyze ideas and deeds of others, namely our politicians. As for Steven Harper's briefing ways, just read the national press - Keith Boag is not the only one asking for improvement.

I don't agree on CBC either. I think they do a good job on national news reports every day, especially on their documentaries. They are sometimes the only ones to do important investigations, which nobody else dares to attempt (such as a case of a professor of a Canadian university who for years faked scientific results, and if not for CBC he would keep doing it, or the recent staggering cancer documentary). Some CBC shows, such as 'The Fifth Estate', are simply outstanding examples of great journalism. Some shows,"The Tournament", for example", are a lot of fun, not to mention humour shows on Fridays etc. I certainly don't regret at all, that some of my taxes go to support CBC, because they have a lot of talented journalists and many informative products.

I think our CBC journalists are professional and adequate, thanks goodness that we don't have anyone like Coulter and other Fox travelling circus exhibits!

Posted by: Acer | 2006-04-12 9:15:19 AM


While I do like Steven Harper, I want to say this:

First of all, Keith Boag is a POLYTICAL ANALYST, his job is not to come up with 'original' ideas, but to comment and analyze ideas and deeds of others, namely our politicians. As for Steven Harper's briefing ways, just read the national press - Keith Boag is not the only one asking for improvement.

I don't agree on CBC either. I think they do a good job on national news reports every day, especially on their documentaries. They are sometimes the only ones to do important investigations, which nobody else dares to attempt (such as a case of a professor of a Canadian university who for years faked scientific results, and if not for CBC he would keep doing it, or the recent staggering cancer documentary). Some CBC shows, such as 'The Fifth Estate', are simply outstanding examples of great journalism. Some shows,"The Tournament", for example", are a lot of fun, not to mention humour shows on Fridays etc. I certainly don't regret at all, that some of my taxes go to support CBC, because they have a lot of talented journalists and many informative products.

I think our CBC journalists are professional and adequate, thanks goodness that we don't have anyone like Coulter and other Fox travelling circus exhibits!

Posted by: Acer | 2006-04-12 9:15:33 AM


ok Acer,
let me re-phrase, Keith Boag hasn't come up with an original insight on our federal politicians in years. And the PM of Canada does not exist to make life easy for political correspondents who feed off every sound bite to ''make the story''

Posted by: David | 2006-04-12 9:54:24 AM


Boag has a "tough time" as a functional illiterate let alone holding down a job that is way beyond his abilities....Harper's clean on this one...maybe he can blame Bush.

Posted by: Wlyonmackenzie | 2006-04-12 10:09:34 AM


CBC News is biased, anti-Israeli,pro Socialist
Horde, and used by the Liberal Party for years -
Boag indeed is barely literate in the political
arena, and is a receptical for what Liberal flunkies wish to dump on him over lunch in Ottawa's finest.Much worse than "Boagless" however is the puffy, self important, Mike Duffy
who puports to be a "journalist" but in fact is a
gossip manipulator, who should be forced to register as a Liberal Party lobbyist. Duffy appears from time to time, proudly wearing a made
in Communist China "Liberal Tie", given to him on
air by Saint John MP Paul Zed. The saving grace is that Boag, Duffy, Ms. Bad Hair Day and most of the other National Capital Journalists could not survive in a real world environment, which I
am sure PM Harper is aware of. Stephen Harper is,
as I have posted on this site, the Liberal Party's worst nightmare. I think he will be PM for some time.

Posted by: Jack MacLeod | 2006-04-12 10:23:24 AM


Acer,

I realize you mistakingly posted the same message 3 times but me thinks that it needed to be repeated 3 times for some of these fools.

"As for Steven Harper's briefing ways, just read the national press - Keith Boag is not the only one asking for improvement."

How about 4 times?

Boag was simply showing that all this talk of 'accountability' and 'transparency' is hypocritical when Harper refuses to adequately answer the media's questions.

But that's to be expected since EVERYTHING Harper does he learned from BUSH.


Posted by: Justin Fossey | 2006-04-12 10:23:58 AM


Acer says: "I certainly don't regret at all, that some of my taxes go to support CBC, because they have a lot of talented journalists and many informative products."

Bollocks! If they are so talented and the product is so great, why the hell do they need my tax dollars? Let them go sell it on the open market. Governments have NO business spending (wasting) money on broadcasting. In my world
foreign policy, military, judiciary and law enforcement should be the ONLY things goverments should spend tax dollars on.
The CBC is just more collectivist bullshit.

Posted by: Steve | 2006-04-12 10:26:24 AM


It is hypocritcal to demand cutbacks to things like medicare and education when the CBC still drains about a billion a year from the taxpayer. It is a luxury that should be disposed of in order that other more essential programs can be maintained.

If a "socialist" disagrees with that logic, then s/he is not a "socialist" by any definition - more like a privileged elite driven by material self-interest.

Posted by: Scott | 2006-04-12 10:36:07 AM


Acer

I would respect your support for those brief snippets of professionalism from the CBC if I didn't have to pay for them against my will. If it is such a mature network then perhaps it's time for it to grow up and be weaned from the federal teat. Let its 7% viewership support it through commercials other than for the CBC on the CBC or pay per view or some other non-coercive market mechanism.

Let the CBC compete on equal footing with the "great unwashed American rubes" like Fox News and see which network gets the viewers. No way! say the National Socialists, drapped in the Canadian Flag, "we know whats best for you and we're not going to allow you to choose otherwise". Well guess what, most of us already have, and the CBC isn't there anymore.

I actually find the CTV often worse than the CBC in terms of left-lib-green bias, so I see no loss if the CBC went under. One bad network is better than two.

Posted by: John Chittick | 2006-04-12 10:49:21 AM


The majority of these so-called reporters and "political insiders" rose to prominence as blatant shills for the Liberals. When Liberal corruption was at its worst, when new revelations of criminal behaviour were coming out every day, CBC decided that was a good time to attack Harper instead of investigating the Liberals. They would report on what others had found, but only as much as would required by some absolute bare minimum standard of credibility as a news source, and always buried as much as possible.

Around the time of the minority vote, they completely ignored Harper's historic, stirring speeches he gave in the house, opting instead to show us Martin's ceramic grin at meaningless photo-ops, following him around on his illegal multi-billion dollar spending spree like it was the Cirque du Soleil.

Harper as always was portrayed as a sneaky outsider who was a serious threat to the fabric of this Liberal county. A month or two before the last election, in a story on Allan Cutler's nomination, CBC National displayed a lingering photo of the fictional "Sargeant Schultz" moments before one of Harper -- this ostensibly to illustrate the story of a disaffected Conservative who had been jettisoned from the nomination in Cutler's riding due to his having dressed as a nazi at a party in college.

And on election night "Harper Heil" appeared onscreen. It was an innocent mistake, we were told; it was really the word "their", but the ta dn the ra had been cut off, and a cursor inserted after i...

Also on election night, in a studio full of talking heads, someone mentioned Stockwell day as a possible foreign affairs minister; the studio, lead by Mansbridge, burst into barking laughter, as if the mere consideration was a joke.

They portrayed all manner of hounourable people as threats, and when they let them off the hook it was to portray them as jokes, all in defense of the Liberal juggernaut they were part of. Now, just because in the middle of important nationally important business they're no longer allowed to indulge themselves in hallways productions showcasing themselves, they're crying injustice, as if there is some constitutional right to shout loaded, sideways ad hominems at every Conservative they see, and to portray the appropriate ignoring of such crap as evidence of secrecy.

This government finally has a chance to work on behalf of Canadians -- not reporters -- to clean up the mess that the previous priestly tribe -- who were supported throughout by the CBC -- has left behind. The Van Dusens and Boags, of course, figure this is a good time to use our taxpayer-funded coast-to-coast production machine to complain that they are being overlooked, and to subtly threaten to harm the newly elected government.

Did I say "subtly threaten"? I take it back. Here's what Larry Zolf ("Born and raised in North Winnipeg, the hotbed of general strikes and socialism") who has worked for CBC since 1962 as a reporter, consultant and producer had to say in a CBC news "Analysis and Viewpoint":

"Harper's treatment of the media is that of an ingrate. The media made Harper. The media also first made Trudeau and Mulroney. Later, the media made both Trudeau and Mulroney and their parties suffer at the polls".

"A similar fate awaits Harper if he doesn't change his basic suspicion and hatred of reporters and news commentators."

Gee, why on earth would Harper, or Canadian voters, distrust or dislike the Van Dusens, the Boags, etc?

Posted by: EBD | 2006-04-12 11:06:13 AM


Maybe Keith Boag can replace that foreign women who lives in Rideau Hall when she is done.

Posted by: Passport | 2006-04-12 11:38:48 AM


Very well posted EBD - absolutely correct analysis of the CBC, CTV pro Liberal "media" -
Zolf is wrong about Trudeau being "hurt" by the Ottawa Press Corpse. Most of them were scared shitless of Trudeau, who did not care what they said about anything, much less him. Brian Mulroney however caused most of his own problems
despite his supurb political talents; what my convent trained life long Liberal Mother would call "Lace Curtain Irish" always trying to impress. In Mulroney's case, excessive use of Irish blarney did him in, but he deserved another
term as PM in my opinion.
blarney

Posted by: Jack MacLeod | 2006-04-12 11:39:30 AM


Cheap shot passport,

she has lived in Canada most of her childhood and all of her adult life.

I suppose you would prefer prince Charles and Camilla, or maybe another Ed Shreyer-like ex NDP premier- how about Bob Rae?

Posted by: David | 2006-04-12 12:05:28 PM


'Journalists' on the Hill are whining like crazy, it's great! Their party is out of power and it has upset their comfortable 'newsmaking' arrangements, it's about time. If they really want to be on TV in an Entertainment Tonight type of format with all the pre-arranged hype, drama and 'scoops' then they should move to Hollywood.

Posted by: infidel | 2006-04-12 12:05:39 PM


I apologize for posting three times, was not my intention, a computer glitch. Sorry anyway.

I understand the "CBC are Liberal" stereotype. After all, Liberals were in power for how long? and CBC is a Crown Corporation, so ... But I, being just a viewer, saw a lot of criticism of Liberals by CBC way before and during elections, and I see a lot of positive feedback on the current conservative government when I watch the news.

Secondly, even if there is some constructive criticism of the current government, this is a great thing because this is one of the vehicles of democracy! If the goverment listens and improves, it will be only a better govermnent.

As for tax funding of CBC, maybe the amount of funds should be decreased, I don't know. And I think the conservatives already started looking at crown corporations, their funding and accountability issues. But we should remember that we are a small country in terms of population, we are only 32 million people - and we in no way should expect media business to be funded like it is in the USA - there is simply not enough private money for it in this country. And I think that some public funding should be given to a lot of creative projects and creative individuals whose professional achievements we can see and judge ourselves. Just look at our Gavin Crawford, is not he fantastic - Saturday Night Live is not even close :)

I personally want to know what is going on in this country, and I want to know the WHOLE truth, and not the kind of truth which is funded by a biased private corporation of this or that kind. A good example is a documentary called 'The Corporation", it pretty much shows that large corporate networks in the States are not interested in giving people THE truth - and as a consequence, Americans are still drinking hormonally loaded and cancerogenic milk, for example. Censorship of American privately owned networks is a widely known fact.

If other journalists from other media outlets say something critically loaded about Harper, would you still consider all of them Liberals? I don't think so.

As for Fox news as the example to compete with, you made my day :) All I can say is check out one of the 'fifth estate' shows on them, where Fox's so called 'journalists' were simply caught lying about Canada, and when confronted with their own crap did nothing to at least admit their wrong but hurled insults. Also check out how Fox had to fire one of their own for open hatred and anti-gay propaganda - even Fox executives could not take this anymore.

Posted by: Acer | 2006-04-12 12:07:02 PM


Acer: what makes you think that the CBC is giving you "the whole truth"?

It has no more objectivity or sincerity than the so-called "corporate" media. Moreover, since it depends on the government for funding, it is inherently biased. It will bend its stories around its need for money. At best, it is no better than the private media. At its worst, it is an elitist institution believing itself to be untouchable. In the interest of fairness, the CBC must be destroyed.

Posted by: Scott | 2006-04-12 12:23:10 PM


Scott, it sure demonstrated 'the whole truth' on a variety of issues which I named in my previous posts. Whether their news coverage is adequate or not can be assessed by comparing their news to the world news. Also, if you watch CBC national, you'll see that they broadcast various, often directly opposing viewpoints of regular people like you and me - and not only one, 'biased' viewpoint.

Can you give me one practival example of CBC's recent bias? and if you destroy CBC, what would you offer instead? local news? thank you very much. I watch local news every day, but I don't learn anything new from them which I would not find in the local newspapers (or vice versa). Same stuff, some boring and repetitive information.

Posted by: Acer | 2006-04-12 12:34:11 PM


I haven't watched the CBC in 16 years, not since they said that the Nazis had nothing to feel ashamed of during WWII in the 1990 "Lie-umentary" the Valor and the Horror. Therefore, I can't give a recent example. In fact, I gave up watching TV entirely two years ago and do not miss it.

However, it is almost cliche to say that the CBC represents a privileged, ivory tower elite. It is now accepted that they are a cut above everyone else, particularly other news agencies. As a replacement, I propose to open the entire market up to competition. That means US and foreign networks can operate freely, allowing a multitude of perspectives to flourish. Local news will always be local in nature, as it should be. The only thing the CBC does for national unity is be the focus of taxpayer rage.

Posted by: Scott | 2006-04-12 12:42:07 PM


I don't think anyone in their right mind thinks that FOX is fair and balanced. You just need to watch it for a minute to know that they are more or less shills for the Republicans, just as CBC are shills for the Liberal viewpoint.

But in a climate where 80% or so of reporters and news organizations are consistently shown to be left-leaning (by American standards), at least the presense of FOX provides a counter-balance. There is nothing similar in Canada.

Acer, I agree with you that constructive criticism is a good thing. THe problem with CBC isn't their criticism per se, it's that when they cover federal politics, they editorilize constantly. That's fine if something is presented as a piece of commentary, but it's unacceptable when it's presented as a news report.

The motivation may not be as intendedly partisan as it appears; I think in some cases the reporters are just betraying their intellectual immersion a CBC culture that is Toronto-centric and largely indistinguishable from '90's Liberalism. Regardless, the CBC is meant to be Canada's public broadcaster. They should go out of their way to avoid partisan politics.

Justzumgai posted here a relevent quote from 19th C. libertarian author Frederic Bastiat which said that in France the tendency towards liberty was thwarted largely because writers on public affairs "...(desired) to set themselves above mankind in order to arrange, organize and regulate it according to their fancy."

See CBC elder Larry Zolf's quote at 11:06:13, and notice how Canadian voters are casually elbowed aside in such a manner.

Posted by: EBD | 2006-04-12 12:48:02 PM


Interesting, so you haven't watched CBC for so many years, but you still have an opinion :) it's like saying 'my ex-girlfriend still loves me", though she moved on a long time ago and now has 6 kids :)

I suggest you give CBC a fresh look before scorching poor guys :) as for 'freedom' of private networks in America, I already gave a widely known and quite symptomatic example. Another one is what happened to network exposure of Dixie Chicks after they criticised Bush? Their songs are out of radio and other media thoughout the country because networks WERE INSTRUCTED to do so.

Posted by: Acer | 2006-04-12 12:48:21 PM


EBD, everybody in the media has to editorilize. Let's be specific. The other day CBC news showed a report on the new accountability act. Did they say anything bad about the act? no. Did they show any biased info on the discussion of the act? I don't think so. They showed the goverment stand, they showed the opposition's comments. Of course I wanted to see more of it, but this is news - it's just an hour's allocated time slot.

Then it was Boag's turn - it was HIM COMMENTING. He said what occured to HIM. Particularly that the news briefing to journalists was short, they could not get a lot of info, as their questions were limited. Did he lie? no. Was that the fact? yes. Maybe he stretched it a little, associating government accountability and lack of info about the actual prospective piece of legislation, I don't know. But I sure don't think it was a) a biased opinion, it was his opinion as a political commentator b) a Liberal opinion. Once again, a whole bunch of other journalists definitely feel the same way. And, let's face it, communication with Prime Minister's office has been tough for journalists, current PM's spokesperson is number 6 or something like that? :)

For those who do watch CBC at during last year, you sure could see 'round tables' where representatives of various political parties were invited - they even had documentaries on such parties as the Communist and Marxist party of Canada, for heaven's sakes! :) before elections they had interviews with each major candidate, and I thought that Peter Mansbridge did a good job interviewing Steven Harper, I had the feeling that he liked Harper. And he gave some tough moments to Martin when he interviewed him.

And yes, CBC is based in Toronto, but they have TONS of extremely interesting documentaries and news about Canada's provinces and reporting directly from those provinces. I loved these - there were several about Alberta, about Canadian North, and others.

Posted by: Acer | 2006-04-12 1:04:03 PM


Acer, how recent is recent? Here is one example. Last year, the CBC and CTV ran almost the same story on music downloading. The CBC only interviewed the RIAA (or whatever Canada's version is) and a music industry expert from some university. CTV had the same report but also gave a few seconds to the other side of the story where some artists like the downloading because it is an easy distribution system that gets more people out to their concerts.

I agree that the National sometimes has non-biased reports, but they should all non-biased.

John M Reynolds

Posted by: jmrSudbury | 2006-04-12 1:22:31 PM


Acer:

Your cred dipped to zero when you said that Canada isn't big enough for a private broadcaster to report the news. What is Global News and CTV News then? CTV has been turned down several times for a full 24/7 news station by the CRTC protection racket/thought police to protect CBC newsworld's monopoly on 24 hr news in Canada. Newsnet has even been fined for straying too close to the CBC's turf.

In 2006, there is no legitimate excuse for either the CRTC or the CBC. Their funding should be cut alright, to zero. The CBC should be sold to the private sector. The CBC should get no special consideration of any kind.

As for trying to debate anything with Scott, don't waste your time. He's a lunatic.

Posted by: Warwick | 2006-04-12 1:29:18 PM


I respectfully disagree that everybody in the media has to editorialize. In reporting on a homicide, it's not necessary to opine that government cutbacks were the cause, or that the police looked mean, or put the do-not-cross tape too far back. Reporting on a traffic jam doesn't necessitate a rambling discourse on global warming.

As for Boag, he is always introduced as an analyst of sorts and not a reporter, so his editorializing is what's expected of him. The problem is that as the CBC's "Chief Political Correspondant" he's blatantly Liberal. Anyone, yourself included, can say that he's not anti-Conservative, or that you can't see it. Bias isn't something you can stick on a scale and weigh, exactly, but when you have your hands over your eyes it isn't a defense of the idea that CBC coverage has been balanced, or that it isn't Toronto-centric and broadly Liberal.

BTW, the presense at a round-table of members of the Communist and Marxist parties doesn't go a long way to disprove that the CBC has a lefty bias.

Posted by: EBD | 2006-04-12 1:30:25 PM


"The CBC should be sold to the private sector."

No, no, no, give it to the "Friends of CBC", May 1, 2007. Let's find out just how many friends the CBC has. Let's find out just how much people are willing to fork out to keep their pet projects going.

It'll fold in 6 months, tops.

Posted by: Kathryn | 2006-04-12 1:36:49 PM



Kathryn:

How about we sell it to the "friends of the CBC" instead?

That way we get back some of the public dollars we sunk into that sespool of idiocy.

Having them fundraise will be much more entertaining way of seeing how many friends the CBC really has ;) The gumballs and moonbats will have to actually put their OWN money into the atrocity! Ya, right!!

Posted by: Warwick | 2006-04-12 1:40:59 PM


What really pisses me off re the cBC is that they dont even talk to the viewers, they talk to each other as in "Keith" and the report is ended with "Peter". The paying punters are completely ignored! No wonder their ratings are in the cellar.

Posted by: scarlet | 2006-04-12 1:45:20 PM


Warwick,

I thought of selling it, but how does one determine the fair market price for a GG apprenticeship school? :)

Cut our losses and give it to them.

Posted by: Kathryn | 2006-04-12 1:55:32 PM


Kathryn:

I don't know but wouldn't it be fun to see them all empty their pockets and fundraise?

I'm sure we'd get around $0.77, two subway tockens, a joint or two and at least one set of gratefull dead tickets (circa 1973.) If we're really lucky, we'd get some rolling paper with the passwords to rabble.ca written on it and we'd be able to run amuk on their servers...

Posted by: Warwick | 2006-04-12 1:59:40 PM


The problem is not Boag's shady editorializing, its the general CBC Toronto News for Canada, or News of Canada for Toronto that permeates the whole production.

Boag and the CBC feel slighted because Harper doesn't treat him nor the CBC like royalty anymore, ie its ok to treat the minor networks like second class but not Mr. Big Shot Boag from the CBC.

I don't think the CBC should be sold or closed, but bravo to Mr. Harper for taking them down a notch.

Posted by: David | 2006-04-12 2:05:23 PM



David,

Why not privatize? What is the utility to Canadians that the private sector can't deliver (and without $1Billion a year from the taxpayer?)

There has to be some reason to spend the money or why do it.

Posted by: Warwick | 2006-04-12 2:07:04 PM


It is simply wrong for Canada to have any state-sponsored media. It destroys any possibility of that media being able to support its role as a pillar of society.

If the CBC is funded by the state, then clause 2(b) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms should be amended to exclude the CBC.

Posted by: Vitruvius | 2006-04-12 2:12:08 PM


There are all sorts of reasons to keep some federal institutions, but one could argue for privatization, but then why not privatize health care, state run utilities etc.

Basically Canada is a large country with a small population and very little common cultural icons, unlike the USA which virtuallyt dumps its cultural products into Canada at low cost because they have a huge home market to pay for deveoping them.

If tv and radio were like movies and the market totally private, how many Canadian programs would be produced for such a small market? One look at the percentage of Canadian movies shown here might give you an idea of where tv and radio would be.

Does that make the CBC inherentty good, no way. Their inherent tendency to suck up to their financiers in power needs to be changed , maybe by changing the way they are financed to meke them more independent, like the BBC in GB.

But if the alternative is FOX or Hollywood tonight allnight, I would rather we keep the CBC and try and minimize its warts.

Posted by: David | 2006-04-12 2:29:19 PM


I'm a minarchist, David, which means I believe the size of the state should be kept as small as possible. I would indeed privatize the delivery of health care, and state-run utilities.

While it is necessary for the state to hold some public property, as far as possible the state should not be involved in anything that can be effectively done privately. Otherwise, due to the nature of government, a tragedy of the commons will ensue.

We all ready see this tragedy of the commons in the Canadian creative arts sector, in the CBC, and in health care, where we have found that funding that has been detached from market mechanisms has drastically lowered the quality of the products.

Posted by: Vitruvius | 2006-04-12 2:41:31 PM


I already expressed my viewpoint on the so called 'private' Canadian media - maybe National Post has sometimes worthy stuff to read, but the rest just simply dubbs each other. What kind of news is that if the topics covered in today's Calgary Herald = today's CTV news broadcast almost topic by topic??

As for 'Boag and CBC feel slighted', you obviously not only don't watch CBC, but you don't read Canadian newspapers either. Because if you did, you would see how many other journalists complained about lack of communication from PM's office.

Free private Canadian media? yeah right. Just be consistent - when Western Standard was the ONLY Canadian media outlet which published the notorious cartoons, what other 'private' media were doing? At least CBC mentioned the fact, as well as told the viewers WS was not alone - a professor in one Canadian university did the same (I forget which one). If CBC were so 'Liberal' or whatever, they would just totally ignore it like that was done by the private media barons.

Once again, democracy can exist only in the environment where there is a variety of voices. If these voices are limited only to two private corporations, it would be way better to have a third one, even if we fund it. And, by the way, since we fund it, we have the right to request to be heard and demand they are accountable - expecting the same from the priviledge from privately owned media would be extremely naive.

Posted by: Acer | 2006-04-12 2:42:42 PM


Scott, you got me. I have generally avoided CBC for only 13 years. Although I do confess to having watched the odd period of hockey during the playoffs a few times in the past decade. I am glad some media-bias critics watch CBC--that way I'd son't have to. I'll wait for the report that things have improved.

Posted by: murray | 2006-04-12 2:46:42 PM


David,

Privatize Health Care, State Run Utilities and the CBC?

I'd call that a good start.

Posted by: Warwick | 2006-04-12 2:49:00 PM


Jeez, Warwick, ease up on me. I almost p****d my pants reading your reply to Kathryn. Ever thought of writing a book, dude. I'm serious, you're a born pundit, mate.

Acer, here is what I can't stand about the Caliphate Broadcasting Cabal: OK, these w**kers get all this Fed money over and above what they raise in advertising, so why is it impossible to watch movies on CBC? I saw the Blues Brothers, I think it was, and it took like 3 or more hours!! Endless commercial breaks. WTF???

Now as for their biases, try these on for size: why is a Jew who builds his own home in Judea called a "settler", but a Mexican who violates US sovereign territory and squats in a Texas slum called an "undocumented worker"?

Or Palestinian "militants". Give me a friggin break. Union leaders are "militant" sometimes. Get flippin real. Why not call them what they call themselves, like the illegal migrants in the USA?

Or for every report on how hard it is for Israeli parents to bury their dead teenagers there are 50 000 000 stories on CBC on how poor Ahmed can't get to work on time, because of all those nasty Israeli checkpoints, which only came into being because of all those Palestinian "militants" in the first place.

I could go on, and tomorrow I will, if you like.

Posted by: cracker-crusader | 2006-04-12 2:50:37 PM


calrification: The illegal migrants prefer to be called "undocumented workers" so why not grant the same deferrence to the Palestinian "activists".

Posted by: cracker-crusader | 2006-04-12 2:53:54 PM


David, bad comparison with the BBC. If the CBC becomes more like the BBC I'll stop filing tax returns!

The BBC is now thoroughly compromised by Islamist interests.

Posted by: cracker-crusader | 2006-04-12 2:56:47 PM


Vitrivius, with all due respect, attachment to market mechanisms is not always a good thing. First of all, things like art are not always marketable in the sense 'if it is good it will sell, and fast'. It may never sell, yet it is still art. The history of art itself is a perfect example - many famous artists died poor and now their paintings cost millions. Meanwhile, support of art and artists has always been out there, which tremendously helped a lot of talented people. Every advanced state in the world has programs, both state and private-run, to support arts etc.

Healthcase market involvement? how about this? Your wife is pregnant and the doctors tell her she should have a caesarian. It turns out it was not really necessary but because she is in a private clinic, they would make more money off her because a caesarian is an operation! This is a common practice in some of Eastern European countries. Some doctors come up with cancer diagnoses and some other serious conditions - and patients pay them because it brings a profit to a clinic. The only relief is that they still have a choice of going to a state run clinic and confirm a diagnosis if necessary.

Everything should be balanced and there should be a multitude of options for everything - and not just two extreme pendulum points.

Posted by: Acer | 2006-04-12 2:57:10 PM


"maybe by changing the way they are financed to meke them more independent, like the BBC in GB."

David, you may be onto something. The BBC licence is actually a licence to own a TV or any other device to receive or record TV programmes (for example, a VCR, set-top box, DVD recorder or PC with a broadcast card) and currently costs C$241.00 per year. People have no choice on whether they will pay it, short of tossing the TV, VCR, etc. out, but at least they know exactly how much state-run TV costs every household. I wish Canadians could say the same.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/info/licencefee/#spent

On second thought, it's not a good idea. State-run TV is not a proper function of government.

"But if the alternative is FOX or Hollywood tonight allnight"

You know, I've refused to watch CBC for years, never watch Hollywood Tonight (does anyone with an IQ over 3 care what celebs do?), don't get FOX and still manage to watch TV and be reasonaby well-informed. Why, you ask? The internet.

How much would you be willing to fork over to the "Friends of CBC" to keep it going? (See my 1:36 post.)

Posted by: Kathryn | 2006-04-12 3:01:19 PM


The CBC only 'criticized' the Liberals for not pushing their leftist agenda far enough, fast enough, it was exactly what the Liberal Party wanted them to do.

Take any issue - pumping multi-culti voters with cash? The CBC presents the big bad government as a bunch of white racists, then, we see a Liberal minister on camera handing out cheques to dark skinned people and 'solving' problems. Big smiles all-round. Taxpaying Canadians get stiffed but they're racists if they're not happy about it.

Posted by: infidel | 2006-04-12 3:05:29 PM


Cracker-crusader, I totally agree with you on the movies. It was outrageous, when I watched 'LOTR' on CBC last time. Let's complain! On the other side, I discovered a few great movies watching them on CBC - for example, 'Formula 51' and 'Beautiful Girls'. Who else would show them to me?? :)

I don't know what a Jewish guy is, a settler or not, but to me 'undocumented worker' = 'illegal worker', or 'illegal immigrant'. I thought CBC was clear on that. I did not feel like they supported illegal Mexican workers. Again, they showed the scope of demonstrations, and then they showed an American guy who said he wanted his country back, because he was fighting for its flag.

The word 'militant' means militant, it exists for this purpose. I just don't get this extra attention to 'politically correct' labels - especially 'alderwoman' type of 'right' words piss me off :)

Frankly, I did not see any bias whatsoever in covering the confilict - if an Israeli rocket kills seven Arab kids, it's a fact, it's not bias. Same with recent explosions in Pakistan, or whatever.

Posted by: Acer | 2006-04-12 3:07:30 PM


Infidel, the other week, when Conservatives declared that Tamil Tigers are outlaws now in Canada, CBC EXPLICITLY explained that during the Liberal times there was a cover-up of Tamil Tigers' fundraising activities by Liberals in exchange for their votes. I swear CBC was the first source from which I heard this about! :)

As for being 'racist' for trying to prevent one's 'white' identity, I don't think it's CBC's issue. Unfortunately, it is a 'Canadian' issue - if multiculturalism is proclaimed a value of this country, then remembering who you are and how the country started is obviously not :( I am not racist, but I am totally with you on the issue.

Posted by: Acer | 2006-04-12 3:18:34 PM


I don't think that art which nobody's willing to invest their resources in, save a clique of artismists, should nonetheless be supported by expropriations from other citizens, even though they have already chosen not to allocate resources to it.

That's called theft.

The CBC suffers from the same problem. If I don't pay my CBC taxes for a few years, the enforcers will show up at my door with a gun. The CBC is supported by the threat of state-sponsored force against any citizen who disagrees.

I don't find that acceptable.

Posted by: Vitruvius | 2006-04-12 3:22:38 PM


Vitrivius, art is not something where you can immediately calculate a monetary value of something. You know that, of course. And I agree that certain reasonable limits should be set for art and media support if it is supported by the taxpayers. As I said, it is already being reviewed. But I am sure you know that art just can't exist and develop without support of this kind. It's just a fact of life.

I was saddened by one of the reports (CBC's, by the way) about the closure of a local museum in one of small towns (Ontario, I think). It was a unique museum, created by efforts of many people - and they did try to make some money by themselves. But they could not, and they did not get enough funding. I felt sad - it was like the heart of this community was stopping. As civilized people, we must take care of children and old, and sick - those who simply can't sustain themselves. In the same manner we should take care of what makes us a nation with its own unique contribution to the world - be it this tiny museum or Toronto Opera, or 'The Tournament' on CBC.

I'd rather have some of my tax money go to a Canadian country museum or a local hospital than to some UN project or the like. I am sorry but giving 2 million dollars of our provincial tax money to Hurricane Katrina cause is just wrong at the time when children in Calgary can't get hospitalized with Stage IY cancer.

Posted by: Acer | 2006-04-12 3:34:58 PM


1 2 3 Next »

The comments to this entry are closed.