This morning was spent, as per CBC Employee Policy, liasing with other CBC managers, smoking Bob Hope, reinforcing our self-regenerating opinions, and dreaming up new, subliminal ways to discredit the current Prime Minister.
I waited patiently as Burman bogarted the joint, as he is wont to do, and I thought to myself: how come no one has stopped us yet?
I mean, for nearly 70 years, as Wedgie points out, the first question at any job interview at the CBC is: “Do you remain unimpressed by Israel’s accomplishments?” Even the Jews answer “No.” That is, if they want a job here. Strange, but according to our detractors, true. Or rather, truthy.
It was more than a year ago that I posted an article called “Why cbcwatch sucks,” in which I laid out my disappointment with that site and the watchers of the CBC. Mike Connell, the webmaster for cbcwatch agreed with me.
It’s no better one year down the road. It may even be worse. I think there’s a need for real discussion on the CBC. That site is not the place for it. The comments sections are echo chamber for a few people engaged in a circle jerk.
It certainly doesn’t approach the quality of Biased BBC. It’s hard for me to judge the arguments on that blog, as I don’t watch the original BBC programs, but the writing is lively and they hit several notes instead of the same one over and over and over.
The real contender these days is Stephen Taylor, who is doing more watching of the CBC than anyone, and is the one who did the Christina Lawand YouTubing a while back.
In fact, he’s watching so much of it, the rumor is that Sandra Buckler of the Office of the Prime Minister is calling the shots, siccing him on journalists who are out of favour, and tipping him off to bits the PMO wants blogged.
If he isn’t on the payroll, he might as well be.
Again, it’s a site with an agenda, not a place for discussion.
The commenters believe that they’re part of a movement of some kind, witnessing the end of the Main Stream Media and the birth of “the truth” in reportage.
But what the poor fools are getting is government propaganda, pure and simple.
And that doesn’t do anyone much good at all.
Burman, newsdude, are you going to pass that or what?
19 Comments
The CBC’s hidden agenda is to defeat conservative policy and opinion – maybe that’s why nobody watches the CBC anymore. Shut it down.
Actually, most of the articles found on cbcwatch DONT appear on the other pro-CBC sites like Friends. Perhaps you get that huge daily scan of articles by CBC’s clipping dept and have confused the two!
You suck by lying so much!
Dwight – not sure if you’re just joking around, but I hope this site never made “just a viewer” feel they were unwelcome to comment. I know that this site is not as accessible as Inside The CBC, but your comments, and those of any viewer are welcome and appreciated.
4:46 PM, September 28 Anon – I’ve already written 2 posts on the subject.
I’d like to see them hit harder. I’d like to see some original thought. Stephen Taylor is doing a much better job of watching the CBC than cbcwatch is.
Ironically, the site is very biased, only posting negative articles. Sites like Friends of Canadian Broadcasting post the positive and the negative.
Why wouldn’t I want to read both and make up my own mind? Because the people who read the site are only looking to confirm their own viewpoint, not learn something new, or challenge their preconceptions.
That’s why it sucks.
You know, it’s odd, but I don’t recall seeing anywhere that Justin was lobbying to replace Rabinovitch in the CBC chain of command…?
That said, there’s still a lot being done well at CBC’s various divisions that I’d happily keep around in the wake of any reorganization. But again, I’m just one of the viewers these days.
So what do I know?
So to be clear: cbcwatch sucks because they repost articles and information in a fashion you personally don’t like?
Justin. Got a question for you.
Do you think any comment you make about management or directors or any other big-wig is going to make one iota of difference?
I’ve seen enough of your earnest “repeated efforts” to get your views across, and I still don’t understand why you think you should be running the CBC, let alone what you would do differently.
And to Anonymous –
What is experimental about The Hour (as it was broadcast last year)?
It was embarrassing to see that the content was so predictable, and there was no innovation whatsoever in the field of broadcasting.
I see where one CBC producer, Paul Jay, seems to have given up on Newsworld and wants to start his own CNN …
One thing at least seems clear: The CBC, as it exists now, won’t be around for much longer . This is not a prediction of what the Harper Govt. might do. It is more of an observation: No one, not in the CBC or outside of it, on the right, left, or center, the CBCs Board of Directors or even CBC management appear ready and willing to defend the status quo either in terms of performance or operations.
My complaint, if I had to voice just one thing, is really that there’s not enough experimentation and fascination with the world in evidence at Newsworld.
And what, pray tell, is The Hour? Everything about that show is experimental. How many things do you want Heaton etc. to juggle? He’s one of the good ones.
And, in the spirit of “what have you done for me lately”, what about The Big Picture? Did you not notice Heaton’s name at the end of the credits? And, if I’m not mistaken, one of the Execs (Susan Taylor) is also Senior Producer at The Hour.
This is a good strategy: get something right (or, as Baxter suggests, build a foundation), and then go from there.
I must be watching a different network..
You folks act like Canada is a 3rd world country. Yes the CBC is funded by the government, so of course there is a slant towards being an instrument of said government. However, you also have the option of switching channels too. Do they not have cable in Canada? We don’t seem to have that problem in America. (but according to Mr. Fulford you guys at the CBC hate us too so maybe the point is mute). What I’d really like to see is the CBC really geting a handle on what Canada wants from a publicly-funded broadcaster and not neccessarily public broadcasting. There is a difference. Do you think your management understands this?
refuted retard?
well, I do have a clue.
Baxter wants a discussion to lay a foundation for further discussion. Blah, blah. Just spit out if you have something useful to say.
Tell me what your problem is with the CBC.
I found the reference to Israel and Jews shocking. Where did that come from?
Fulford is right in pointing out the hegemony at the CBC.
Of course it’s all government propaganda, because it’s the government that draws the line – it either likes/finds accepatable what’s being broadcast or it doesn’t. That’s fine with me. Especially when the corporation is dependent on money from income taxes.
My complaint, if I had to voice just one thing, is really that there’s not enough experimentation and fascination with the world in evidence at Newsworld.
Pretty sweeping statement there, Allan. ‘Everything’?
Not from where I sit (inside)….
lets be honest. there are few neo-cons working at the cbc. the whole concept of public broadcasting is a liberal idea. can a staff of liberal-minded journalists put their bias aside and report the news? i believe so.
CBC’s own history, viewed objectively — particularly in recent decades — would tend to refute Allan’s claim.
But what do I know? I’m just a regular viewer and therefore have no clue at all.
allan is clearly retarded; baxter’s point is to move beyond that kind of crap
Everything we see and hear on the CBC is government propaganda.
Media tends to reflect the values and priorities of those in power, and none more so than a publicly funded broadcaster.
It will always be that way.
Many people whisper in my ear… conservatives, liberals, ndpers, media (and yes, some people at the CBC who want to see some things sorted out).
Some stuff that I’ve written on the CBC has come from inside your building on Front street.
If I can be a source for the improvement of the CBC by finding whatever I can that’s wrong with it, and if you can help the CBC by doing or continuing to do good work there… hopefully we’ll all benefit.
The CRTC’s review of how new media are evolving and the Commission’s review of conventional broadcasting may provide the forum some are seeking. Here’s one example of some very fascinating data re. CBC that I found on the CRTC’s web site:
http://support.crtc.gc.ca/applicant/docs.aspx?pn_ph_no=pb2006-72&call_id=41204&lang=E&defaultName=CFTPA/ACPFT
(Appendix C)
What we need, more than a debate regarding the value of the CBC (specifically), is an informed-but-critical discussion regarding the value of public broadcasting to Canadians. Then we can get beyond those aspects of the anti-CBC watching that just prolong the conversation (without resolution), and instead head toward developing a collective understanding of the values the CBC can pragmatically address. With this underway, supported internally by Burman’s “fireside chats,” we could then set about constructing a conceptual foundation upon which future discussions would sit.
Friends of Canadian Broadcasting (friends.ca) could provide a forum for this, but they may be insufficiently disconnected from the issues to be credible as more than a source of data. The Fraser Institute suffers from a similar problem, but from the further along the political spectrum (and with questionable data). Are there other institutions — neutral alternatives — who might be able to push for such a discussion without a pre-established political or commercial agenda?
Personally, I believe there is great value to having a strong and independent public broadcaster, especially as regards the credibility of news. But, without a larger debate, I would be hard-pressed to quantify it. And, without that, I don’t see any way to have an intelligent discussion about why the CBC is “evil.”
Without a set standard against which to measure performance, every critic is only entitled to their (similarly uninformed) opinion. And, as we have seen, that’s not very useful in resolving the issues at hand….
I think that, sadly, only those with a political agenda have any real interest in discussing the CBC or it’s future. After trying repeated methods and forums for a year it seems to be something that very few people, inside or outside the Corp really want to talk about. Unfortunately this will leave Stephen Harper, Bev Oda and the CBC Watch people free to make decisions with little or no further input.