Here’s the truth: I discovered that site some time ago, and what hooked me was its ‘exposing the bias’ tagline. I was earnestly interested in having our bias exposed.
But it only contains news stories lifted from various sources I can find elsewhere, usually accompanied with a snarky tagline. Ironically, some of the stories are about how unbiased we are. Comments are buried and combative.
They do, however, copy and paste with precision and dutifully retype print items tat I can’t find online. Monkeys can also do this.
Inexplicably, the ‘editors’ are anonymous. I may be a gutless coward, but at least I risk getting fired. What could they possibly be risking?
I guess what disappoints me most is that it could have been better. I rarely expect to get the truth about the CBC when I read the newspaper or some online pundit. Quite often they get it wrong in the first sentence, which saves me from reading the rest of the article. I’m sure you know what I mean. What with this lockout we now have a lot more of it around, 90% of it wrong. Except for John Doyle, who is 90% right, at least this week.
If I thought it was worth it, I might make my own web site, and poke some holes into some of these news stories. I would choose the big ones, probably, because people read these the most.
Until then, just read what Tod Maffin has to say. But you knew that already.
11 Comments
Thanks for the nod to CBCWatch.ca.
I agree completely that the site hasn’t lived up to its promise. It was only set up as a proposal. Then I started law school and wasn’t able to complete the idea.
It’s anonymous posting because I’m not a web designer and I couldn’t figure out how to make the platform work (if anyone knows “DRUPAL” and can fix this: admin@cbcwatch.ca).
Because there are people who diligently post material which is worth compiling, I decided that it was better to leave on-line a good idea partially executed than to remove it.
Mike Connell
“Ouimet”, I suppose if you actually believe the positions broadcast over the CBC, if you feel they are correct and what Canadians generally feel, then yes, I suppose you’d have a hard time seeing the bias. The problem is, a lot of Canadians DON’T feel that way about what they see and hear on the CBC. What they hear is a discomforting mix of Liberal Party ideology mixed in with enough anti-Americanism and artsy elitism and snobbishness to make them wonder why we spend a billion dollars a year to hear this stuff. That’s the disconnect, and why sites like cbcwatch exist. If CBC was a private broadcaster expressing those views, nobody would particularly care except the shareholders. But, if as is often said, we are all shareholders in the CBC, perhaps it’s easier to understand why the Corp. has to be scrupulously even-handed in what it puts on the airwaves. If you are old enough to remember the CBC prior to the 1970s, that’s what it did. In the attempt to be more “relevant” and “edgy”, it bought into an ideology and alienated a large part of the country.
I stand corrected, I guess all this blogging had me thinking of “sites” instead of “sight”. My bad.
Oooh! SNAP!
“We can’t blink, but we must never, ever lose site of that.”
i think you meant “sight”, no?
Like everyone else I’ve been wracking my brain to figure out who Ouimet is. Like everyone else I’ve had moments where I wanted him or her to come out of the shadows. But, I understand why you don’t want to or can’t. It’s not fair to ask Ouimet to be our martyr. I can’t remember the last time staff walked out of their jobs because a middle manager was being treated unfairly (and it happens all the time). In principal, we’d like to sometimes. In reality, mortgages, groceries, daycare stop us from doing it. So, let’s end the pressure for radical action by Ouimet. He (and yes, I’m betting it’s a he….the picture and reference to giving up on makeup seem a little too obvious to me!!! I hope someday to find out if my instincts are correct) can do much more for us by reminding upper management that middle management in general is not supporting this lockout. Let’s take stock. Clearly from the newspaper coverage (john doyle, exceptional) we have won round one of the public relations battle. Jason McDonald has inadvertently helped us on that one with some of his stupid comments. But, we’ve really won round one because our loyal listeners and viewers hate what they’re hearing and seeing and miss what they are not. They’re ticked off that they pay for a service that they are not getting and I don’t blame them one single bit. This lockout is starting to get the attention of political types. A week ago, Paul Martin says he won’t interfere or intervene. A couple days ago, Joe Fontana says he’s willing to do what it takes to get both sides back at the table. This is not a clear victory until he actually does something about it, but it’s a head in the right direction. Stursberg visiting the line was nothing more than arrogant skullduggery (he was only trying to eavesdrop on Hargrove and he wouldn’t address his employees when asked to do so). But, I see Rabinovitch’s visit as something more. Do I think he got an attack of conscience and starting worrying about the programing and the people? No! Do I think he recognizes, one small battle at a time, he is wounded and beginning to lose his war? Yes. He would not have bothered to appear if he wasn’t starting to “get it”.
He said, in front of many people there would be no conditions attached to getting back to the table. I don’t believe that was his position until he was put on the spot, so we should capitalize on it. Let’s hold him to it. Let’s get back to the table, no conditions. If the CBC breaches that promise, well, it just wouldn’t be pretty.
Canadians know two things. They have been wronged. They also know we have been wronged in the process. Let’s never give them a reason to change their mind. We must be as committed to public broadcasting on the line as we are at work.
We can’t blink, but we must never, ever lose site of that.
Well gosh, thanks for this:
“You have to remember: It doesn’t get a few billion taxdollars to squander annually!”
I’ll assume you’re talking about the CBC.
Thing is, it’s hardly squandered, and it’s less than a billion.
So maybe you’re talking about a different currency as you communicate your own bias?
It’s easy for someone who posts as anonymous to say “you’d have a lot more credibility if you told us who you were.”
As CMG members, we are facing hardship right now. Why ask someone else to put their name and job on the line over a blog?
On the other hand, I’d leave the reveal until this is all over. We need a voice on the inside. Just don’t do any ‘lockout’ work, O.K?
And as for the website. Well, no wonder the Corp canned the publicists. Since we’ve been out we’ve made a HUGE noise about CBC.
‘You never know what you’ve got ’till it’s gone’.
The administrator has a signed his stuff. And he makes a good point here:
http://www.cbcwatch.ca/?q=comment/reply/6/194
You have to remember: It doesn’t get a few billion taxdollars to squander annually!
But, then again you apparently have no bias…
I enjoy reading your blog, but you’d have a lot more credibility if you told us who you were. It’s easy to say you’re on the inside, but that’s hard to believe when it’s all anonymous.