June 6, 2007

Hues Of The News: Burman On The Hot Seat

Politics Watch

The head of Canadian Broadcasting Corporation News faced questioning from Conservative MPs on Parliament Hill Tuesday about what they called a "doctored photo" that appeared in April on CBC's news website.

The public broadcaster's news web site carried an altered stock photo of the Toronto skyline that was noticeably darkened and made the smog and atmospheric haze appear much worse than in the original photo.

The altered picture of the skyline accompanied a story about the Kyoto accord and was first noticed by a Canadian conservative blogger.

During a meeting at the Commons heritage committee, Conservative MP Chris Warkentin accused the CBC of publishing a "doctored photo" that misled the public.

The CBC official was appearing before the committee as part of its study of the role of the public broadcaster in the 21st century.

"It was a complete misrepresentation," he said. "It speaks to the sensitivity that you have to engage in at CBC. Of course it wasn't intended, you ensure us, to mislead Canadians but in fact it did mislead people because it was there to support an opinion that was being brought forward with the article that it was published along with."

Tony Burman, editor in chief of CBC News, Current Affairs and Newsworld, CBC Radio and Television, said the use of the darker photo of the Toronto skyline was the result of a "process error" and not indicative of any editorial bias at CBC.

"What happened then is that a photo was retouched," he said. "It wasn't retouched for use on air . . . It got misfiled . . . It was inadvertently pulled out and used."

"It was a very subtle difference. In fact it looked very similar. We did check it. It was immediately pulled when we were aware of it. It was an inadvertent error."

Of course it was. "Inadvertent error" is the usual manner in which an original stock photo is first cropped, run through a "warming filter" to achieve the desired tone, saved with a new file name, and then uploaded to the CBC web server, before being randomly selected to illustrate a "news" item featuring a report on the economic impact of meeting the Kyoto protocols.

Someone's finger slipped.

The original.

An unenhanced photo of the same site in July of 2005

Hues of the News (1)

Hues of the News (2)

Posted by Kate at June 6, 2007 5:07 AM

There's all the evidence we need, Burman et al are taking us for fools. Truth escapes them, they have no scruples.
We really should be calling for Burman to be fired.
It's gotten to the point where watching the news is a total waste of time. When we see the usual faces spouting more opinion than facts it's time to click off.
We're paying them for the bare news,that's a news anchor's job, we'll decide how to process it in our own minds. Roving reporters constantly shove their opinions forward when covering events as well, they should be called opinionators, that's what they are.

A few months ago we had Christina Lawand skewing a Harper event, Bloggers got her put out of sight for a spell, they're now trying to sneak her back, we won't tolerate it!

Has anyone ever in memory heard so much negative reporting on any government? It's even worse and more sinister than during the uncovering of Adscam. Of course we were dealing with the loving family of Liberals and MSM, an incestuous mix.

CBC can be called to heel. CTV and Global are another story, every bit as misleading but all we can do is complain and shut off, let them talk to themselves.

Posted by: Liz J at June 6, 2007 7:58 AM

So is the CBC itself an "inadverdent error"?

Posted by: Justthinkin at June 6, 2007 8:02 AM

Privatize the damned thing!!

Posted by: Louise at June 6, 2007 8:04 AM

"What happened then is that a photo was retouched," he said. "It wasn't retouched for use on air . . . It got misfiled . . . It was inadvertently pulled out and used."

Huh?? Why would you retouch a photo if you weren't going to use it?? That's like saying I put fuel in my car NOT to drive it! And what is this crap about the CBC being asked questions? In this case, the Conservatives are no better then the CBC. They can throw out all the softball questions they want. Problem is, most of us don't want questions.We know the CBC is a leftard tool,just can it.

Posted by: Justthinkin at June 6, 2007 8:31 AM

1 billion dollar subsidy for the CBC or an extra billion for health care. where are your priorities? what is more important to the little old lady waiting for up to two years for hip surgery?

Posted by: DJ at June 6, 2007 8:37 AM

Did other readers hear what I heard on yesterday morning's CBC radio news? On the 40th anniversary of the Six-Day War, the opening sentence of the piece ran something like: "Forty years ago Israel lashed out at its Arab neighbours....."

Prickly, those Jews.....

Posted by: Roseberry at June 6, 2007 8:43 AM

This morning on CBC with the little smiling geek whom I have no interest or ability to refer to by name, an interview was held with leaders of Danza Cuba who are performing in Toronto (am going Tuesday).
Toward the end, the interview turned from Dance to an attempt by the interview to twist it into criticism of the US policy toward Cuba, how the Bush Administration is refusing visas to Cuban performers and how there were communist points made in the show.
To her credit, Liszt Alfonso ignored the buffoons leading questions.

Posted by: Brian Lemon at June 6, 2007 8:51 AM




Posted by: Liz J at June 6, 2007 8:53 AM

Didn't the CBC have the non-corrected file on the web server also, hence the reason Kate so easily found it? Would it not have taken at least an ounce of intent to put the doctored photo in the article as opposed to the original?

Posted by: mark peters at June 6, 2007 8:54 AM

What is this CBC you speak of? I actually have both of the CBC channels as blocked for inappropriate content ;)

Posted by: Jim at June 6, 2007 8:55 AM

Yesterday Paula Todd and CTV were highlighted, today the CBC's foibles are at the top of SDA spotlight for all the world to consider.

Spotlighting Canadian MSM's shadier side.

Time is on the bloggers side though, because the internet has poked a stick in the eye ( should be up their collective nuanced asses!) of the gatekeepers of Canadian information.

Watching SDA counter mount up daily is evidence of world wide attention to a very important Canadian blog.

Posted by: Joe Molnar at June 6, 2007 8:57 AM

roseberry - and Liars, that CBC.

For over a generation, Canada has been a one-party regime,the Liberals. This party set up a taxpayer funded media system, with its executive appointed by the gov't and all other staff necessarily followers of the executive ideology. Naturally it became an incestuous, self-organized partisan mouthpiece of the Liberals.

Academia is another haven of the left, with academics operating in the safe haven of tenure, unions and the unaccountability of cultural relativism. Journalism schools are linked to our MSM - and the mindset is nurtured and continued.

It's only blogs that are genuine participants in intellectual freedom.

Posted by: ET at June 6, 2007 8:58 AM

Lieing POS.

Posted by: richfisher at June 6, 2007 9:01 AM

The greatest threat to democracy is not Islamic terrorists but biased media that are incapable of reporting facts even remotely accurately. How can the public make up its mind intelligently about any issue if we are just fed crap. Garbage in garbage out.

Posted by: Fritz at June 6, 2007 9:16 AM

Hoist on their own lefty pink petard.

CBCpravda " All liberal, All the time"
" All Khadr , All the time"

Posted by: cal2 at June 6, 2007 9:25 AM

"How can the public make up its mind intelligently about any issue if we are just fed crap."

It's really quite simple Fritz...if it's on CBC,then just simply reverse what was said and you have the truth. Sorta like the Useless Nations. If they are against it,then it is a good thing in reality.

Posted by: Justthinkin at June 6, 2007 9:26 AM

Kate: I emailed you a couple of weeks after it was"pulled" from the website providing a link to a page where the CBC was still using the picture on the site. Mr. Burman is either misinformed or lying.

Posted by: Gord Tulk at June 6, 2007 9:36 AM

I have not watched any Canadian TV news in over 6 months and don't miss a thing. The News used to be the News. It is now just left wing editorializing. No thanks I can do without that. I can get the news from the internet without the sanctimonious preaching.

Posted by: Kevin at June 6, 2007 9:38 AM

I haven't paid any attention to the CBC since I was a college boy in the eighties and Burman's pitiable attempt at CYA is a good example of why: its institutional contempt for its audience's intelligence. Phase out all or most of the subsidy and force the CBC to either look for a paying audience or advertisers; as it is it's waste of time and has been so for at least two or three generations.

Posted by: Blackadder at June 6, 2007 9:48 AM

i watched ctv national news last night at 11, Now i know i was tired but did anyone else notice that there was nothing on the G8 Summit & the PM.
Not News worthy i guess.
i should also say that after 20min i shut it off so could have missed it.

Posted by: bryanr at June 6, 2007 10:13 AM

That's why they are called the CBC:

"Canadian Brainwashing Corporation"

It is Coriolis Force LIEberal spin doctoring.

If you do it too often, you will be 'left' politically blind.

Posted by: Hans Rupprecht at June 6, 2007 10:19 AM

How could Burman be misinformed, it's his business to be informed. So what's the answer? Incompetence?
Heaven forbid, lying? He seems to know enough about it to KNOW it wasn't doctored to be aired, that's telling in itself.
He better go try smuggling dawn past a rooster.

Posted by: Liz J at June 6, 2007 10:24 AM

I wish someone would slip when it comes to budget time for the CBC.

Mr. Harper, please, if you love this country, mute that Librano propaganda organ.

Posted by: shaken at June 6, 2007 10:27 AM

Can someone from our Conservative government explain to this Conservative why my tax dollars are used to support an organization that uses those dollars to denigrate me and everything I stand for? Cojones anyone?

Posted by: gork at June 6, 2007 10:34 AM

One of my fingers just slipped, too. Guess which one?

Posted by: andycanuck at June 6, 2007 10:35 AM

Burman is surely the most duplicitous creature in the mass media today. Close second is the excrable Heather Mallick. Miss Malice NEVER mises an opportunity to stick the anti-American knife in; she NEVER misses an opportunity to call George Bush "stupid"; and she NEVER misses an opportunity to denigrate the Prime Minister. Why, why, why are my tax dollars going to pay the salary of this stupid cow? It's an outrage equal to that of Burman being allowed to masquerade as a serious news manager.

Posted by: Patrick B at June 6, 2007 10:47 AM

I don't watch the news any more. They are a bunch of wankers. Everytime there is some kind of disaster, and destruction, the reporters always seem to find someone to say.....wait for it......"its like a war zone." Show some respect for the poor S.O.B.'S who have lived through war. Not me personally.

Posted by: Tom at June 6, 2007 10:49 AM

Oh this just ruffles my feathers you just cant trust those lying liberal leftwing news media i mean over 85% of the news photos are doctored

Posted by: spurwing plover at June 6, 2007 10:53 AM

"the darker photo of the Toronto skyline was the result of a "process error" and not indicative of any editorial bias at CBC."

Sheeeeeeiiit...they aren't even gracious craven..they won't even stand up for their stilted prejudices...pathetic...typical cowardly leftist situational ethics.

Posted by: WL Mackenzie Redux at June 6, 2007 11:04 AM

I always liked this picture!

If I am not mistaken, it is taken from the West side of downtown; looking East. This means that the smoke in the forground is coming from over Lake Ontario to the South. New York perhaps; because I always thought the old smokestacks on the shores of Lake Ontario were on the East side of downtown and the Don Valley parkway? But what do I know?

As well; there must be terrible wind sheers in Toronto! The vapour from the high rises appears to be headed South-East; but the big Greenhouse Gas Plume goes North!

I suppose this is possible to have such a wind vortex if at the time the photo was taken the boys and girls of Queen's Park were sitting!

Posted by: NorthernLight at June 6, 2007 11:05 AM

Liz J said: "A few months ago we had Christina Lawand skewing a Harper event, Bloggers got her put out of sight for a spell, they're now trying to sneak her back, we won't tolerate it!"

Heck Liz ya gotta actually watch CBC to monitor them that much, ...something I won't do....or more precisely "wont" do....I have a health condition that keeps me from ingesting daily doses of tainted gruel ;-)

Posted by: WL Mackenzie Redux at June 6, 2007 11:08 AM

The tide is turning, slowly but surely and the CBC monkeys can feel it in their bones. With each passing month mother corp becomes more irrelevant so Burman and crew are desperate to stop progress. My God, what would happen should Harper get a majority. We can't let that happen is the current mantra so they lie and distort to hang onto their overpaid taxpayer funded positions. Like Dingwall these leaches feel they are entitled to their entitlements. Ah, to be a fly on the wall during CBC strategy sessions.

Posted by: prospector at June 6, 2007 11:12 AM

Speaking of leftist media bias, here is a story about NBC devoting 75 hours of air time to Al Gore so that he can "move individuals, corporations and governments to take action.” Hmmm. Is Gore going to declare his candidacy later this summer or fall...?

Posted by: Brent Weston at June 6, 2007 11:19 AM

Just to clarify, the picture was taken from the west facing east. The smokestacks you see were located in Oakville but they no longer exist. The position of the stacks in relation to the Tranna skyline is very suspect to say the least, and I personally think they were superimposed on the original picture.
The "smog" you see, if it is real, would have originated in the Ohio Valley. Ontario's contribution to pollution is found in Upper new York and the New England States.

Posted by: Rattfuc at June 6, 2007 11:32 AM

Today,cbc has a new agenda..the presentation of the poor 'Balcony Rapist',Paul Callow,and how the nasty people of surrey want him out of their backyard.The fawning over him,by the cbc interviewer,and the 'injustice'of protestations by citizens was ridiculous.Bragging by cbc over the exclusive they got with this beast,to complain about 'his human rights being violated'was stomach turning to say the least.Callow had the gall to say,that 'under the Charter,he has a right to feel safe'..and he 'won't be intimidated into leaving.' Most telling,was his comment at end of interview,when he praises the cbc for being the only media outlet to 'seek the truth'
I'd like to know about the 'rights' of the women he violated,the rights of the kids and women in Surrey to feel safe..and why Ontario wouldn't allow him to stay in the province,so BC should welcome him now??..the sympathy of cbc toward this jerk is stunning.

Posted by: Sammy at June 6, 2007 11:39 AM

Ha! Burman is completely full of crap and everyone knows it.
BTW - did you notice today the CBC relishing that they got a confirmation from the Russian state department that Putin is Meeting with Harper this week in Germany?
They are spinning this as Harper would not tell us anything .... look how much freer the Russians are!
Privatize them now and let the losers stew in their own juice instead of using my money to spread bullshit!

Posted by: OMMAG at June 6, 2007 11:41 AM

Here is how to meet our kyoto goals.
Sell the cbc.
Take the proceeds and spend it all on wind turbines.
Tell all the former cbc'ers that the turbines are actually very large microphones for them to complain about the great neo con conspiracy into.
The resulting jet streams of hot air will power Canada for a hundred years.

Posted by: lyle bert at June 6, 2007 12:16 PM

I generally do not make personal, disparaging remarks about individuals, but in this case, I'll reluctantly make an exception:

Question - How can you tell when a CBC news official (in this case Tony Burman) is lying? Answer - When his lips move.

Now, what does anyone suggest as penance?

Posted by: Brian in Calgary at June 6, 2007 12:29 PM

Geez Jim, for a moment there I could have sworn I was reading the Shotgun Blog.

Posted by: Rattfuc at June 6, 2007 12:48 PM

Wardrobe Malfunction

Posted by: jack at June 6, 2007 12:50 PM

[edit] "Ethics
There is a growing body of writings devoted to the ethical use of digital editing in photojournalism. In the United States, for example, the National Press Photographers Association (NPPA) have set out a Code of Ethics promoting the accuracy of published images, advising that photographers "do not manipulate images [...] that can mislead viewers or misrepresent subjects."[1] Infringements of the Code are taken very seriously, especially regarding digital alteration of published photographs, as evidenced in a recent case in which a Pulitzer prize-nominated photographer resigned his post following the revelation that a number of his photographs had been manipulated"

Burman is against ethics and for state-run fraud, so lets "retouch" all of the CBC transfer cheques accordingly in a "warming filter" of say, 10,000 degreees kelvin, to highlight the "sepia tones" and the "inadvertant" "proccess error" of democracy and liberty (read CBC) will be forever righted.

Purpose of hearing; State run broadcasters role in the 21st century.

As Ontario liberals like to say in their edgy $800,000 Euro-font, FLCK OFF CBC.

Posted by: richfisher at June 6, 2007 12:50 PM

Brian in Calgary....for penance you must bow down to Queen Gaia(Lizzie May) and praise Borat Dion for his acce-lent grasp of thu Eeenglish Language. Or at least that is what the lefties would have you doing.

Posted by: Justthinkin at June 6, 2007 12:57 PM



Posted by: Paul at June 6, 2007 1:13 PM

What do you mean, Paul, about the need for a Conservative majority. Harper and the Conservatives have failed to deliver on a single promise when it comes to privatizing or "commercializing" the CBC. They have not even completed the mandate review they promised. Harper is a pussy. He is afraid to take on the CBC. Majority or not.

Posted by: conservative not at June 6, 2007 2:13 PM

conservative not (2:13 P.M.)

Only some kind of fool would chalk up Harper's governing "program" to date to him being a pussy. If you're so hot nuts to see him deliver on his promises, why don't you vote for him next election. What's that? Oh, you're AFRAID of Harper's governing style if he gets a majority.

So who's the pussy, "high school"? Poor baboo; are you terrified the country will fall to pieces if he actually privatizes the C.B.C., that feckless anachronism of an organization? They're a bunch of tiresome blowhards.

Posted by: Joe B. at June 6, 2007 2:35 PM

Imagine the propaganda factor the lefties could gain if the CBC was shut down.

Posted by: Rob C at June 6, 2007 3:36 PM

Mark & Justhinkin ~ Kate has asked us not to respond to the commenter you are responding to, as he has been banned for gross misbehaviour. Those of his comments that leak through the filters will be deleted in due course. Please respect Kate's request.

Posted by: Vitruvius at June 6, 2007 3:37 PM

Vit and Kate sorry...I wasn't aware of the request. Not a prob.

Posted by: Justthinkin at June 6, 2007 3:40 PM

Understood, Justthinkin. As readers can now see, this thread is a bit chopped up because earlier two people, John and Alby, descended into impotent swearing, and their comments and a couple responses had to be deleted. Regular readers should by now be aware that that sort of behaviour will not be tolerated here, so please, I implore you, when you see someone else engage in it, do not respond in kind.

For the record, I have no official status here, these comments are just my opinion, like yours. That said, I think it should be noted that in my opinion one of the reasons SDA has attracted such a distinguished readership and notable awards is that Kate keeps the discussion from being hijacked by people that would seek to destroy it by drowning the signal in noise.

If we want to preserve this quality result, then it behooves us to not engage in the sort of behaviour that undermines it. Sorry for interrupting with this meta-comment. It is not my intention to distract from the deserved evisceration of the CBC.

Posted by: Vitruvius at June 6, 2007 4:26 PM

Vitrvius...understand were you are coming from. I goofed..and responded. Sometimes I let my emotions take over. As for the the rightfully deserved and earned gutting (that's redneck,knuckledragger for evisceration) of the CBC, were does one start?

Posted by: Justthinkin at June 6, 2007 4:40 PM

Sometimes I do that too, Justthinkin, but over the years I've learned not to, because there is nothing that annoys people like that more than being ignored.

I do though think that I have a clue as to where to start disemboweling the CBC, CTV, and anyone else who is engaging in their sort of misbehaviour, as English has one perfect word for it: fraud.

There are laws against fraud. Short of civil disobediance or worse, it seems to me that assembling and prosecuting a case for fraud, as we are doing here, is the place to start.

Posted by: Vitruvius at June 6, 2007 4:52 PM

How in the world do you prove institutional state sponsored fraud ?

Posted by: Bill D. Cat at June 6, 2007 5:09 PM

I'd like to clarify the clarification - the stacks were in Etobicoke, just southwest of Toronto, not Oakville which is further southwest. They were torn down last year after being scheduled for demolition by the previous Conservative government. The smoke is blowing east out over Lake Ontario. The picture is obviously doctored for colour and could also be altered for perspective as the photo makes the stacks appear much closer to downtown than they actually were.

Posted by: at June 6, 2007 5:09 PM

Click .

Posted by: Bill D. Cat at June 6, 2007 5:28 PM

I appreciate how frustratingly difficult it is Bill, but there is a long-term mechanism that is in our favour as we have observed over the last thousands of years, and that is: The proof of the pudding is in the eating.

Posted by: Vitruvius at June 6, 2007 5:31 PM

It IS difficult . The point of what we're doing here is discourse , be it pro or con . None of us have the edit option at the tip of our fingers ( excepting of course yourself and a select few others ) , so be it . What's the diff between cake and pudding ?

Posted by: Bill D. Cat at June 6, 2007 5:49 PM

3 eggs and a cup of milk.

Posted by: cal2 at June 6, 2007 5:51 PM

Thanks for putting that in perspective cal2 .

Posted by: Bill D. Cat at June 6, 2007 5:55 PM

As I mentioned at 4:26 above, Bill, I do not have any administrative role here at SDA, such as "having the edit option at the tip of my fingers", I'm just commenting like you. As you say, "the point of what we're doing here is discourse, be it pro or con". Within that context it seems to me reasonable to eschew those who have demonstrated via a legacy of comments that they are not interested in discourse.

But we're off topic, so I'll leave it at that, other than to note that as demonstrated by their bi-assed presentations, it is now clear that the CBC and CTV are not interested in discourse, they are only interested in peddling their fradulent goods.

Posted by: Vitruvius at June 6, 2007 6:14 PM

How in the world do you prove institutional state sponsored fraud ?

Posted by: Bill D. Cat at June 6, 2007 5:09 PM

Well, how hard would that be if we use the newly founded Burman rules of evidence, and just photoshop some pictures to sort of make it look like state sponsored fraud.

Done like dinner! :^)

Posted by: richfisher at June 6, 2007 6:19 PM

I'd rather put on a wooden bill, go out and peck sand with a chicken than listen to the CBC.

Posted by: dan mansbridge at June 6, 2007 7:04 PM

Burman refers to "six or seven" incidents in the past few years that were "inadvertant." Presumably these incidents would include:

1) Christina Lawand's artfully constructed piece which took Mr. Harper's answer to a question, and made it appear to be the answer to a completely different question, with the effect that Mr. Harper appeared express that he was completely unconcerned about the death of children in Lebanon.

2) The National's broadcast of a video showing Mr. Harper (head superimposed) naked in a tent, with whipped cream on his nipples, cavorting with a naked George Bush, similarly unattired.

3) The National's multiple, lingering shots of a banner held by a few people, reading "CONSERVATIVES GET THINGS DONE...FOR GEORGE BUSH!!!"; the second careful presentation of said banner included an edgewise placard in the left foreground of the shot that was then perfectly rotated -- flip! -- to show a photo of...George Bush. (This, in a story on Mr. Harper's farm-aid announcement).

4) CBC Employee Mary Walsh calling the Conservatives the "arse-lickers of Satan" on CBC's production of the ECMAs.

5) The endless reiteration -- for months now, sometimes four or five times an hour -- of the words "That guy is so far up George Bush's backside" in a promo-clip for "The Hour".

6) Newsworld anchor Jacquie Wilson shaking her head highly exaggeratedly -- "No. No." -- for a good four or five seconds, nonstop, while reading out a statement in which George Bush defended one of his policies.

7)The display on CBC's website, during the last election campagin, of a cartoon image of Mr. Harper giving the Nazi salute.

8) The word "heil" displayed as a graphic on CBC's election night coverage.

9)The National's juxtaposition of a photo of Sargeant Schultz of Hogan's Heroes fame with one of Mr. Harper in a story during the last election campaign on Alan Cutler's nomination.

I could go on, but I think for now we should just give CBC the benefit of the doubt, and assume that in each of these cases they simply hit the wrong button by mistake. We simply can't prove CBC is biased unless, say, the evidence were to be broadcast constantly, coast-to-coast, for years and years...

Posted by: EBD at June 6, 2007 7:31 PM

EBD and others.

Keep collecting the evidence. It will come in handy some day.

Posted by: ron in kelowna at June 6, 2007 7:50 PM

How often does Burman or any CBC big cheese get grilled by the HoC committees?I would like to assume that since our taxes go to their paychecks that they would be accountable to HoC...
Is this new or a regular event? I'm a bit encouraged with the facts that the MP's came up with during the questioning. In all the frustrating exposure of bias and misrepresentation that we have seen, I have often wondered how much the MP's were aware appears they haven't missed any of it.
Perhaps the writing is on the CBC on the chopping block?

Posted by: vf at June 6, 2007 10:44 PM

There is no need to privatize the CBC. The Conservatives need only cut their funding and let them rely totally on donations like PBS in the US. No one watches them now except for hockey and even then.... The problem with privatization is that someone would have to purchase the corpse to keep it on the air. Who would do that? CTV? Global? Unfortunatly there is no deep pocket FOX in Canada.

Posted by: Joe at June 6, 2007 11:09 PM

A long, long time ago...
I can still remember
How that music used to make me smile.
And I knew if I had my chance
That Don Messer made those people dance
And, maybe, they’d be happy for a while.

But decades made me shiver
With every story they'de deliver.
Bad news on the doorstep;
The critics say "not one more step".

I can’t remember if I cried
When CBC declared itself the liberal bride,
But something touched me deep inside
The day the balance died.

So bye-bye to the CBC pie.
My taxes pay the levee,
till the levee is dry.
And them good old boys were drinkin’ whiskey and rye
Singin’, "this’ll be the day that I die.
"this’ll be the day that I die."

Did you write the book of love,
because CBC has no faith in God above,
If the Bible tells you so?
Or do you report Koran only so.,
Can tax hikes save your mortal soul,
And can you teach me how to dance real slow?

Well, I know that you love Stephane
`cause your translations are such a sham.
You both fell on your a$$.
Man, I dig those grin 'ouse gaz.

I was a lonely teenage western buck
With a pink carnation and a pickup truck,
But I knew I was out of luck
The day the balance died.

I started singin’,
"bye-bye, to the CBC pie."
My taxes paid the levee,
Till the levee was dry.
Them good old boys were drinkin’ whiskey and rye
And singin’, "this’ll be the CBC dies.
"this’ll be the day that they die.

Now for twenty years we’ve been on our own
And CBC grows fat on long term loans,
But that’s not how it used to be.
When the jester reported on the king and queen,
and now he sugar coats what the greenies see.
And a voice that came from the NDP,

Oh, and while the king was looking round,
The jester stole his thorny crown.
The news desk was abandoned;
for on street critic rants..
And while mansbridge read a book of marx,
The quartet practiced in the park,
And they broadcast dirges in the dark
The day the CBC died.

bye bye to the CBC pie.
expanding C slated to go out and die.
Peter Pansbridge drinking whisky and rye.
Saying this is the day that we die.
this is the day that we die.

Helter skelter in a summer swelter.
The critics hide in a fallout shelter,
Eight times a night they send us silly news..
It all smells foul on the news.
The Khadrs tried for a sympathic crowd,
With the CBC on the sidelines cheering loud.

Now the half-time CFL was sweet perfume
While the dryed up Guesswho played a marching tune.
We all got up to dance,
Oh, but we never got the chance!
`cause the players tried to take the field;
The washed up band refused to yield.
Do you recall what filled the gap.
"celebrity cooks" or bits of pap.

bye bye to the CBC pie.
expanding C slated to go out and die.
Peter Pansbridge drinking whisky and rye.
Saying this is the day that we die.
this is the day that we die.

Oh, and there we were all in one place,
A little mosque in a prairie place.
with redneck jerks used as the schtick.
So come on: jack be ND , jack be P!
Jack Taliban put on a outrage rant
Cause Jack is the talibans biggest friend.

Oh, and as I watched them on the stage
My hands were clenched in fists of rage.
No taxpayer funding bandaid .
could fill the CBCs mandate
And as the price climbed high into the night
To light the CBCs sacred rite,
I saw Trudeau laughing with delight
The day the CBC died

bye bye to the CBC pie.
expanding C slated to go out and die.
Peter Pansbridge drinking whisky and rye.
Saying this is the day that we die.
this is the day that we die.

I met a girl who sang the blues
And I asked her for some happy news,
But she just backcombed her hairy legs.
Said "lactating mothers have their ways"
Where I’d heard the story many times before,
But the man there said midwifery rules.

And in the streets: the children screamed,
The critics cried, and the editors schemed.
But not a word was spoken;
The CBC was broken.
And the three men I admire most:
The George,and son, and Ronnies ghost,
They caught the last bad story from the host
The day the CBC died.

bye bye to the CBC pie.
expanding C slated to go out and die.
Peter Pansbridge drinking whisky and rye.
Saying this is the day that we die.
this is the day CBCpravda died.


Posted by: cal2 at June 6, 2007 11:40 PM

Fox News should buy the CBC.


Posted by: Richard Ball at June 6, 2007 11:46 PM

alright cal2! there's a Grammy with your name on it, LMAO!

Posted by: joey j. at June 7, 2007 12:24 AM

The whole KYOTO TREATY is based on junk science and fruad its time to dump it

Posted by: spurwing plover at June 7, 2007 12:34 AM

...bravo cal2! bravo!

Oh wait, that's another wingding channel...

Posted by: tomax7 at June 9, 2007 9:43 AM