When I slap them around on a blog. On the other hand, they are referred to in some parts as “Al Jazeera North”, so perhaps their turn is coming….
When I slap them around on a blog. On the other hand, they are referred to in some parts as “Al Jazeera North”, so perhaps their turn is coming….
Perhaps Heddy Fry can support MotherCorp by proclaiming CBC sattelite vans are burning in Calgary this very moment…..
Syncro
Just saw this at Neale News:
“Then, as photographers called out during his address, he added: “If you saw ‘Transamerica’ … I’m talking … you fuckwit, fucking photographers you should be shot, you should be all shot. Thank you.”
The person quoted is Elton John.
I’m sure, if questioned further, Mr. John meant photographers should only be wounded, not killed.
Should we conclude that this has their burqa clad editors cowering under their desks now?
At Al Jazeera, I mean, in case anyone was confused that I meant the NYT’s, BBC, CBC, or The Guardian.
The CBC is smart enough to listen to their masters and wouldn’t do anything to piss them off, like display cartoons. So long as the dhimmis keep paying them they’re fine.
Given the GTA National’s curious and utter silence on recent testimony from Guite’s trial, it seems a plausible suggestion that the real threat to the CBC comes from former/current Liberal insiders. At least, that would explain Keith Boag’s facial expressions, as well as CBC’s tendency to scour the country for tragedies whenever unsettling and damaging information about the LPC’s recent past comes to light.
Well, way back in February, when Julie Van Dusen went ballistic on CBC’s “Politics” because David Emerson didn’t get “his tush over to the Press Theatre” for a media scrum, I wrote a letter of complaint to the CBC Ombudsman rather than torch JVD’s or Don Newman’s cars.
I just received, via e-mail, Vince Carlin’s review of this situation. As usual, it is much longer than need be and though I agree with his basic conclusion, there’s a screamingly funny subtext, having to do with Julie’s physical comfort level in the interview.
First, the Ombudsman’s main conclusion:
“The [CBC] information service should…try to present its own reporting in clear, concise and conversational language without having to delve too far into the vernacular on inappropriate occasions [referring to JVD’s use of the word “tush,” which Tony Burman had defended saying “tush” was within the peramaters of CBC’s Journalistic Standards and Practices].
“I would also strongly urge that CBC journalists be reminded of their obligations under policy particularly in live-panel situations: by all means offer judgments based on reporting, but avoid opinions and advice to politicians.”
Amen. Now, I think Mr. Carlin should speak to all the other CBC journalists who regularly offer their opinions, like Keith Boag and a few others.
Second, the howler from Mr. Carlin in response to my opinion that Ms. VD appeared angry and let her anger colour her commentary, which was unprofessional:
“…Ms. Van Dusen appeared less angry than uncomfortable, but I attributed this more to the seating plan than personal viewpoint. Ms. Van Dusen was squeezed, with little room to move, between two much larger commentators.”
I wonder if Prime Minister Stephen Harper can now use this excuse when he is looking angry, and if the CBC would give him a little slack. After all, he’s definitely squeezed between not just two but three other commentators, the Librano$, the Dippers, and the Blockheads, who often give him “little room to move.”
Shouldn’t what’s good for the gander also be good for the goose?
Don’t tell me, let me guess. The only places to get fair and balanced news is Fox and The National Post. Hmmm. If its not consistently Conservative friendly its just not reliable news! Is that about it?
I think they got the CBC initals spelled wrong…should be KBC
Kanuckistan Broadcasting Corporation.
There is a another http://www.aljazeera.com/ it is al lot more extreme then this aljazeera.net most of the rated good comments so full of hate for the US and Isreal, they smell of a pig farm their least favorite animal.
I’ve been closely monitoring the blatant and well documented bias of the MSM for over 20 years. “If its (sic) [media coverage] not consistently Conservative friendly its (sic) just not reliable news!”
Your simple minded words, steve. And utter hogwash. No C(c)onservative I know would ever make such an outlandish, self centred claim. I think you’re hanging out with the wrong crowd.
Go ahead and burn the CBC car. Problem is, your 5-star Prime Minister might have a problem w/ you destroying Conservative Gov’t property…
If its not consistently Conservative friendly its just not reliable news! Is that about it?
Posted by: steve d
steve d,
You noticed it too!
The Johnny one notes of the world seem to think that if you have a legitimate problem with some of the inconsistencies and biases in the MSM, the only possible reason could be sour grapes because the MSM isn’t conservative/Conservative.
Lord love a duck. Quack, quack.
The problems with the MSM are for more complicated than that and, therefore, are very difficult to comprehend for those who have processing problems.
Even the CBC Ombudsman, who essentially is a CBC bagman seeing as he once worked for the CBC and was invited back from Ryerson to be their ombudsman, agreed with my concern. Left-lib-fem-gay-ALL journalists should lay off the opinionating and the giving of advice and just stick to reporting. It just takes a little humility, restraint, and professionalism.
And, BTW, just how impartial do you think an ombudsman who used to work for “the firm” is likely to be in the long run, hey, even in the short run? He kind of shows his colours when he excuses Julie VD’s going ballistic because she was physically “squeezed…between two much larger commentators.” LOL
For years now the CBC and TVO have been forced to give air-time to groups like CAIR-Can and people like Dr.Sheema Khan to spew their anti-west hatred and attempt to force non-Muslims in Canada to practise Islam by proxy.
But CAIR and CAIR-Canada have been exposed as a front Org. for Hamas and fund raising for the Palestinian Jihad against Israel, con-job Khan lied at the Arar inquiry as part of her bogus “Islamophobia” crusade to impose Sharia-law in canada under her Charter-Rights.
Let me explain the CBC’s definition of balanced reporting, when the middle east issue was debated on the CBC they gave about 50% of the air-time to the anti-Jewish groups which were less than 1% of our population.
This is like the joke about the Elephant/rabbit soup , a cook is questioned why the soup tastes funny and isn’t at all like the elephant/rabbit version back home.
The cook insists the soup is correct, then he says “I used 1/2 a rabbit and 1/2 a Elephant” so what’s the problem?
lookout
I have been a student of the media, and political junkie, for over 20 years as well. I see a lot of MSM hate on Conservative web sites but I don’t see a lot of Conservative hate in the MSM.
In fact, looking at the Toronto Star, clearly over the years a Liberal newspaper, I have read four articles in the past week which are quite positive about Conservative governance. Two were absolute puff pieces in favour of Harper.
I see the CBC radio and TV as being quite balanced. Even CTV, long a Conservative network, has been looking more balanced lately. I think we are getting better MSM than ever before in terms of fairness.
The CBC should be dismantled and the capital assts sold to the highest bidders.
Steve D:
The statements you make lack credibility. Until you provide ample evidence consisting of facts and your personal experience and observation to support your claims, we have no choice but to just ignore your silly adolescent remarks.
steve, I appreciate your polite response. But would you expect the mice to be grateful if an outside observer told them that the new cat in the house, who happens to be a good friend–e.g., the Star LAST WEEK?–was now mice friendly? Any mouse in his/her right mind would be somewhat skeptical.
With all due respect, as a C(c)onservative, who’s personally been ostracized, ignored, hoodwinked, and sold down the river by the MSM in this country (you can multiply my story thousands fold), you’re living on another planet with rose coloured glasses on.
Perhaps you really believe the rosy MSM picture you paint. It’s a free country and you have a right to be wrong: Yes, steve, there really is such a thing as objectivity and, as a result, objectively, you’re dead wrong about the MSM.
Lookout
It may simply be a case of where you are on the political spectrum. Most people that come to Kate’s website are predictably Conservative and typically they think the MSM is Liberal or Left.
I am not politically affiliated but most of my sympathies end up being Left of centre. My observations over the years would be that the MSM is mostly Right. They are, almost exclusively owned by Corporate Canada. The rich. I think there are now only about six rich families that control most of the big MSM in
Canada. In my mind the media reflects their bias far more than mine. That is why the Left agenda either takes years to achieve even partially(ie daycare) or when they are adopted(health care) they seem always to be under pressure and threat to be dismantled. Meanwhile, the Conservative agenda which is Corporate focused has seen corporate taxes Federally on their way out and Provincially already or approaching single digits. Tax cutting has become an incessant drumbeat purveyed by MSM on both sides of the border. Conservatives don’t want welfare but give it to corporate Canada all the time. So to me the proof is in the pudding. If the Media was so left then the population would have a more sympathetic view of the Left agenda. We all know the power of Media to persuade.
steve, your view of left and right politically is excessively narrow. Have you heard of social conservatism? The MSM is massively out of step with social conservatives like me and has either deliberately misrepresented our agenda or aggressively attacked it (which I’d prefer, if the attacks were principled, which they are not).
You seem obsessive about the rich. But, believe me, steve, the “rich” in this country, involved in the MSM, and just about every other institution, overwhelmingly tend to support your social views rather than mine. I challenge you to refute my assertion with across-the-spectrum MSM examples. (In my experience, in the last twenty years, the MSM has become even more supportive of the left-wing, socialist agenda than they used to be, e.g., CBC, TVO, and the Globe and Mail are all much less palatable to a person like me than they used to be. They may not “hate” people like me and the political agenda we support, but they could fool me any day: They certainly don’t treat either as if they liked them.)
And, guess what? If the MSM were doing their jobs in a professional manner, their likes and dislikes wouldn’t be part of the story.
steve, at best, I believe you’re altogether naive. That’s not a solid foundation on which to base credible arguments. Please go back to the real world and reassess.
lookout
As I said objective reality has seen the continued rise of corporate power while, for instance, child poverty has increased. While we have managed to exclude 40% of Canadians from receiving employment insurance while unemployment has ranged close to 7%. Corporate taxes are quickly disappearing while individual taxes go up. Fifty years ago corporate taxes accounted for half of all taxes, now they are in the low teens. So in terms of who is being served in Canada it is not the little guy.
Who is hurt more by steeply rising housing and gasoline costs? Who is hurt more by the removal of eye exams from health care? Who is hurt more by steep increases in hydro? Which group has been struggling with settling for wages increases below or at the cost of living?
If you think this is the way the little guy is being favoured or helped I beg to differ.
the more you people go on about the CBC, the more you sound like extremists. Believe it or not, the vast majority of Canadians are centrist in thinking, and does a very good. If you think Fox News is the way to go, I feel sorry for you (also if you think anything but Dumbya being the worst presnit ever).
Yeszz, those who noticed the comprehensive years-long portrayal of Harper as an evil Republican-wannabe reptile out to harm our nation’s fabric are extremists…
Hey, you’re not Boag, are you?
Jane Taber wasn’t hurt, was she? Please tell me she’s okay.
Isn’t is back-to-back the Passionate Eye: Michael Moore’s Bowling for Columbine tonight on CBC Newsworld? See, no agenda!
scary to think that CBCpravda does anything but report their own view.
there is a huge differance between just reporting things as they are supposed to and the continous blather of bafflegab they spew for the left of centre.
“The vast majority of Canadians are centrist in thinking . . .” and watch the CBC? Ha! What a maroon!
About five per cent of Canadians watch CBC. You could look that up. Which is why the CRTC and the Liberals banned Fox from cable for so long: they knew a growing majority of us were watching the truth, or at least non-CBC lies.
Hell, there were more than five per cent of us watching Fox on black market satellite dishes than regular folks were watching the Communist Broadcasting Corp. five years ago.
By the way, that Steve boy is either a young teacher or a teacher-in-training. That’s an insult, by the way: it means he’s either a certified moron or one seeking certfication so he can be paid to be a moron misleading children. No one else but a teacher writes and thinsk so stupidly. It’s why they are unemployable.
Canada’s MSM is RIGHT wing? CBC: left, left, left. Torstar: left, as required by Joe Atkinson’s will. G & M; Salutin. Simperingson. CAW Stanford. The no logo lefty Wench. Lefty Ibbitson, lefty Greespam. The lefty Newfie gay guy. And all the other lefties. Shit, even the ROB is left. Ask any business person with a brain. (Hint: you have to ask someone outside Toronto).
CTV? They may not be left, but they sure as hell ain’t right, not in Torontoleftyville.
The Post? Chief columnists now include major Liberal evil lefty bastard Warren Chincilla, and Son-Of-Crooked-Toronto-Star Lefty Boy Radwanski, plus a lefty priest. And to think they dumped MArk Steyn . . .
There is no right wing Canadian media, other than the Western Stanard, which even I don’t read. Right wing canadians, and there are millions of us, consume U.S. media.
soomething you would never find at CBCpravda unless it occured in the USA.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-2189789_1,00.html
steve, the civility’s holding, which I appreciate, but you’ve changed the subject. (And owl, I think you’re right on except for lumping all teachers together: I’m a teacher, who keeps many opinions to myself at school. I hear you.) And what I’m about to say is verbooten in both the educational establishment, which imposes sanctions if it catches you, and on the MSM.)
steve, let’s put the blame for child poverty where it belongs, which is not on the nasty “rich” people of Canada. (How simplistic and immature.) Please pay attention: The reason child poverty’s up is three-fold: no-fault divorce, common law couplings, and no couplings at all, e.g., women who have children by men who don’t stay on, or stay on only peripherally, after the initial act. (Let’s add SSM to the mix.) What do all these models have in common? Instability for our children. It’s not my opinion: All the stats show that these models are notoriously unstable. Such models are all social experiments where our children are the guinea pigs of their parents’ whims: When adults put their sexual “entitlements” and lifestyle ahead of the deepest needs of our children, good things do not follow. Such family models have been around forever. The difference now is that they’re protected by the PC fiction that all family models are “equal” and, unlike in the past, our society now bears the burden of a critical mass of such families. As a teacher, I see a lot of very unhappy, unfulfilled, unsupported children. Look around: Do our children seem better adjusted than they used to be? The objective indicators overwhelmingly suggest they are not.
Again, although it’s been entirely supressed by the MSM, Liebranos and Dippers, and the educational establishment (remember, all these institutions require that “any decent person”, which they consider dissenters are not, bow the knee to “equity and diversity”), it is the MARRIAGE of the male and female who parented the children that’s the most beneficial place for these children to grow up. That you are the product (it seems quite obvious) of the magic thinking of the liberal establishment and its propaganda machine, you’ll probably object. How dare one say what I just did! Well, because it just happens to be true. The stats all show that, in general, children who grow up with their married parents fare much better in numerous categories than the children of less stable, or non existent unions. (This is not space science, but it may as well be in outer space for all the attention the MSM, lefty governments, and Canadian institutions pay it. This selfish and dangerous oversight re our human capital is costing and will continue to cost us all dearly.)
As long as our society chooses to misdiagnose the problem of too many of our children living in poverty and despair (a child doesn’t have to be poor, just vulnerable and emotionally unstable), we’ll never solve the problem. It’s less dollars and cents and more adult altruism and GOOD SENSE that we need here. steve, you’ll never hear that in the MSM, who worship at the cold altar of “equity and diversity”, an altar on which our “humane, PC” society has sacrificed more human victims than our pagan ancestors ever did.
2006 Western society is suffering from the “Peter Pan” syndrome: He said he never wanted to grow up. Well, just call establishment Canada “Kids R Us”, living in a perpetual state of arrested development. One of the worst offenders in this? The MSM. Take a good look.
What about the more realistic C(c)onservatives who wish to turn things around, if it’s not too late? They’re generally reviled and rejected by the MSM, which are chock full of Peters and Wendys. Kyrie eleison. (Whoops! Am I allowed to say that?)
Steve D is so far left that the marxist-leninist party is rightward.
The CBC and the media in general should represent a broad spectrum of views. It does not. It is left and more left.
If the CBC etc. were to be even handed the Conservatives would get at a minimum their eqivalent of the vote or house of commons percentage. Instead, to be “fair” 1/4 bloc (left), 1/4 Liberal (left), 1/4 NDP (left). What does that leave the Conservatives? Not voting percentage, not house of commons percentage. And the Conservatives are the ones running the government!
The left does not like and will not tolerate dissenting views. That simple.
enough
I always love the dumbass “corporate taxes” argument. Who pays the corporate taxes? Consumers. Period. Dividends and other payouts are taxable. They are income for the shareholders. That is when taxes should be payed. All else is overhead such as employees. You know, wages for the “working men and women”. Raise your corporate taxes enough and less people get hired. Or more get laid off.
enough
calling steve d., calling steve d., Where are you?
It seems to me that lookout has hit more than a few nails on the head with her post answering some of your questions about “children living in poverty in Canada.”
As lookout points out, the MSM in Canada have been exemplary in covering up the facts about most families living in poverty. The minute a marriage breaks up and mom and kids are on their own, sans papa, the poverty rate is ratcheted up another notch. (And I should know. My parents split up when I was six and our standard of living would have plummeted to life in a tenement walk-up if it hadn’t been for very generous grandparents who bailed us out by inviting my mom, me, and my siblings to live with them.)
This Utopian idea that we can all have our cake and eat it too, meaning we can live any lifestyle we feel like living with no negative consequences to our children, is bogus and borders on criminal.
steve d., what I can agree with you about is that there is way too much child poverty in Canada. What I refuse to agree with you about is that the cause is mean and greedy “rich” people, always, in your mind, C(c)onservatives. (You might ask both Chretien and Martin what their yearly salaries are.)
The amazing irony here is that the Dippers and the Libranos, with their left-lib-fem policies, acutally foster lifestyles that encourage moms and kids to live in no-dad families.
Most, that’s right, MOST of my children’s friends live in no-dad households and life has not been rosy for them. When my children were young, I did more than my share of babysitting (no charge) for these moms and kids when they needed help.
Part of our problem, a big part of our problem, in Canada is that we are so woefully served by our MSM. They are happy to dole out to Canadians the Lib-Dipper propaganda about families and our need to encourage social experiments. The big-time losers are our kids. Like lookout, I see them in classrooms every day. The cost to them is enormous.
Lookout: apologies for my all-encompassing teacher put-down. A small handful like you are top drawer people and first-rate minds. But as you admit, you have been silenced (by the union thugs among them, but that’s a long subject). Hence my broadbrush painting.
For the record, I am a 30-year vet of the print MSM. And I agree with every word you have written about us. We do a massive disservice to society with every newscast we put together, and every time we fire up the web presses to print our bilge. I was proud of my job as a young man, now ashamed of the industry overall.
owl, apology gratefully accepted! Thanks for your encouraging words. Teaching used to be a fine profession too until it became just about 100% political. Teachers who just want to teach the basics, like reading, writing and arithmetic, to mastery, are hampered on every side by curriculum fads (written by Ministry hacks who haven’t a clue about the real needs of the kids), the politically correct agenda, which controls, with a heavy hand, even jackboots, both curriculum content and discipline (what’s that?), appeasement-minded administrators, who haven’t seen a student or parent problem that can’t be download onto the teacher: “Your child needs a lobotomy? Don’t worry. Mrs. So and So will just add that to your child’s IEP (Individual Educatiob Plan) next term.” I’m surprised teachers haven’t been seconded to visit students’ homes to supervise their homework! It seems everyone has an escape hatch, except the teachers: We’re working harder than ever trying to teach the barbarians in our charge, fend off the critical mass of too-busy to downright irresponsible parents: “My Johnny never had problems like this with any other tecaher.” Ya, sure, cope with our political masters, the often unprincipled principals and VPs who keep us in our place, and the backbreakingly burdensome paperwork we ‘re now required to do. Appreciation? Not much. I thank my lucky stars I’m close to the end of my career.
New Kid, you understand very well the problems our kids are having. Thanks for your comments.
owl and New Kid, I just lost a post. So quickly, thanks. I’ll try to repost later.
lookout
I agree with you. I think you said a lot of children are needy because of poor parenting from various causes.
But you see it does come down to money. You see it takes resources to grow children properly. I don’t know what you can do about bad parents or divorce. You could encourage families by providing incentives and support for having them. As things stand now there is very little support for families except the joke kind(ie $1200 pre-tax).
There are only so many dollars and so many taxes available. If you cost out government tax breaks invariably the bulk go to those that don’t need them(even though everybody says they do).
If families didn’t have the financial and emotional stresses involved in raising children perhaps more people would have more and healthier kids. As it stands now if it weren’t for immigration we would have a shrinking population.
One of the reasons that Quebec has the best child care policies is because they are worried that the Quebecois are not propegating at adequate rates to replace the population.
Until the children are not there people don’t notice or care. The squeaky wheel gets the tax breaks and its the big corporations that have the lobbyists and the profile. There are 18 billion in unpaid taxes out there. A couple of year ago the Provincial government found that 50% of its corporations hadn’t paid their taxes. I hope they are chasing down their money.
In Sweden they give each parent a year off with pay. At age two you are guaranteed daycare for your child until age 8. Between ages 2-8 you can take up to a year cummulatively to take care of your child. If you ask your parents if they would find parenting easier under these conditions I think it would be unanimous. they would love it.
On top of that they get 40 days a year of holidays!
Its all about priorities. Who will make kids a true priority? I would vote for whomever it is even though I don’t have young children.
steve d, I appreciate your response (and, from your comments, I was pretty sure you didn’t have kids). $ and cents don’t make up for parental involvement and love.
The Left seems out of touch with the rhythms of the human heart and the viscerally urgent needs, both physical and emotional, of the young human being: I sat in a meeting today with a child in tears because he never sees his dad, who was never married to his mom. That’s something this child’s never going to get over: Money has nothing to do with it.
And the money the Harper government is providing to families now includes all kinds of two-parent families, many of them with low incomes, with one of them at home, who never got a cent before. Why should only parents, many of whom are very well off, who put their kids in institutional daycare (like I had to), get any recognition from the government? (If you like the Swedish model, you should be very pleased with this equitable Conservative incentive.)
All the best.
P.S. “Who will make kids a true priority?” steve, in most cases, it’s THEIR VERY OWN PARENTS. Here. In Canada. I’m not making this up.
Now isn’t that a novel idea? (You sure haven’t seen/heard it on CBC.)