Is the CBC no longer objective?
Could this possibly be the start of the end of the CBC being financed by Canadian taxpayers money:
In a CTV interview, former Liberal cabinet minister Jean Lapierre, now a television pundit, said an "influential" Liberal MP told him that CBC journalists wrote out the questions that Montreal Liberal MP Pablo Rodriguez asked Mulroney during his dramatic morning of testimony. [Watch interview]Wow, these are very serious accusations. So serious, that an internal investigation has been launched by Mother Corp.:
The CBC has begun an internal investigation and possible disciplinary process after one of its parliamentary reporters suggested questions to a Liberal MP on the Commons ethics committee.To me, if these allegations hold any water at all, there is no question this event will go down as one of the most egregious violations of journalistic integrity imagineable. I have long said on this blog that the CBC has been carrying out a hidden agenda, in that, their talking points have started to resemble [too frequently] those of the liberal war room. But again, if these accusations are found to be true, the head of CBC news should be fired immediately and the future of the Mother Corp. should be put to the test as it's not fair to ask taxpayers to fund an organization that is no longer objective and impartial. Simple as that.
20 Comments:
How does this at all call into question the integrity of CBC? If a CBC employee suggests a series of questions to Pablo Rodriguez which he of his own accord decides to use, where is the violation? No one is exerting pressure, no one is showing bias. The CBC isn't kowtowing to the Liberal party in this instance, and Rodriguez is in no way forced to take Ceeb's (or a single Ceeb journo) lead. Just seems like a really desperate attempt to make a mountain out of a molehill by a group of right wingers who have a "they're out to get us" mentality somehow not suppressed by getting elected 2 years ago.
Have you noticed that the CBC is very quick to repeat broadcast and print slanderous unfounded smears the Liberals make against Conservatives in the House of Commons? The MP doing the dirty work is under parliamentary priviledge. The CBC is not. So once the smear is made in the house it can "become news". Collusion? Sure looks like it. Gee - Julie Van Dusen comes to mind. It is her kind of smeary loaded with innuendo kind of questions that she has now been blackballed from lobbing herself.
I think we should demand a public inquiry. CBC is publically funded. Unlike anything Mulroney did with private funds as a private citizen.
This is nothing new. During the federal election in 2005-06, the CBC was busted in their quest to find a few Canadians who planned to vote against the Conservatives due to fears over a hidden agenda.
Will this get legs? I hope so,but have doubts. Any news junkie knows that the two (cbc,libs) have been rolling between the sheets for years,and the rest of the town knows,but are doing the nudge,nudge,wink wink,say no more,schtick. The cbc does have a new 'leader'appointed by Harper,possibly he will be different. Write to the CBC ombudsman and voice your opinion. It may be interesting to ask about the cost of the 5th estate wild goose chase,also.And why is no one asking if the LIbEraLS had any dealings with the weasel. We are paying for it and they should not be able to hide the cost.
A little melodramatic eh? If you want to talk about hypocrisy, how about the fact that IF something is amiss here then the second part of that says they are 'hunting them down' and will have 'disciplinary actions'. So is the CBC as an organization culpable for the actions of every reporter? THAT is what is egregious. Nobody for a minute would think ANY organization responsible for every act of their workers-any more than a party leader is responsible for every action of a caucus member.
Nobody outside bloggers would care if a reporter suggested questions-imagine, a reporter thinking of questions!
But whoever said CBC was 'objective', such a notion doesn't even exist, let alone in journalism. However, don't you know who is RUNNING the CBC? NOt a liberal!
There are lots of things to complain about the CBC, your letting YOUR bias show a little too heavy.
While the CBC's liberal (big and small) are painfully obvious. I don't buy that CBC employees are part of some mass plot. The problem (and in fairness other media outlets have this as well although not quite to the degree of CBC) is there's little to no diversity of thought. The groupthink has paralyzed the organization to the point they don't see even it themselves. I've written many times that my preference would be to see the CBC continue but it desperately needs an overhaul. Maybe we'll soon get it. We certainly as taxpayers who fund it deserve it.
anonymous said:
How does this at all call into question the integrity of CBC? If a CBC employee suggests a series of questions to Pablo Rodriguez which he of his own accord decides to use, where is the violation? No one is exerting pressure, no one is showing bias.
First of all, the questions Pablo Rodriquez raised were out of order and not within the mandate of the committee IMO. Yes, the chair ruled them in and on the challenge vote (where all Liberals supported the motion), however, now that we know the CBC was possibly involved with this witch hunt, we know where they stand when it comes to non-objective journalism and smear campaigns.
***
nony said:
I think we should demand a public inquiry. CBC is publically funded. Unlike anything Mulroney did with private funds as a private citizen.
Let's not get ahead of ourselves. Although, it will be interesting to see what the Ceeb's internal investigation uncovers. Let's hope they get to the bottom of these very serious allegations.
***
anonymous [3:28 pm] said:
This is nothing new. During the federal election in 2005-06, the CBC was busted in their quest to find a few Canadians who planned to vote against the Conservatives due to fears over a hidden agenda.
The same thing occured when Christina Lawand edited comments made by PMSH to make him appear to be an uncaring conservative. In the end, the biased editing cost her a job.
***
mikel said:
There are lots of things to complain about the CBC, your letting YOUR bias show a little too heavy.
'tis true. I'm biased against the squandering of taxpayers, corporate welfare and government waste. Plus, even if this small venture turned into a larger advocacy group, it still wouldn't take money from taxpayers like the CBC.
***
spinks said:
I don't buy that CBC employees are part of some mass plot.
Nobody mentioned "mass plot", but maybe that's how you interpreted this post. But you are right, there is definitely [as I said also] an ocurring theme or ethos which seems to be present over the years which favours the libs.
What you are confusing is attention to the government in power. Everybody was saying the exact same thing when the liberals were in power. No journalists or media is going to sit around reporting and criticizing the party NOT in power. So if they report on something the government does 'critically' then thats not 'siding with liberals', thats simply being critical of government.
And actually if it WERE true then the opposite would be true, because this government, apart from making some squeeling noises about the Senate, is virtually identical to the last liberal governments, theres' no difference at all. In fact in most cases they are even MORE liberal. IF there were a liberal bias, then the CBC would be LESS critical of the government.
But again, people view these things with a bias because of course a person is only one person. The CBC is a MASSIVE institution. YOu are talking about 24 hours of radio, television, internet and film production. All run by different people but headed over by a guy who has a well known tory bias.
Meanwhile, of course, Spinks idea of being 'liberal' is 'not talking tough enough about abortion'. Many others state that their 'liberal bias' was evidenced simply in the fact that they weren't as 'ra ra' about the war as Fox. Again, thats not a liberal bias.
This is a network with more call in shows than all other networks combined, that's hardly a liberal bias. They are far more populist than any other media, in fact so much so that virtually nobody under 30 ever listens to them. In the maritimes they had a long running show just about home brewing. Now, if by 'liberal', you mean 'theres a radio station just for classical music' then thats a weird definition of liberal. There were rumours that Rita MacNeil's show was cancelled because some Toronto CBC uppity ups were embarassed that their number one show was a large lady from the maritimes singing down home tunes-better to have upscale american ripoffs that nobody watches so they can feel smugly superior.
That was never established though, but even that is 'elitist', not 'liberal', and it certainly wasn't indicative of the entire organization.
In this case, as even admitted, it is only one persons opinion. I didn't quite understand the comment above addressed to me, but suffice to say YOU are a public subsidy. The internet was brought in and paid for by tax dollars. We are expressing our opinion here because of massive tax dollars spent-far far more than the CBC. Any advocacy done on here is by definition publicly subsidized, and if you don't believe that, just watch how fast you can share your opinion versus somebody in St. Quentin. It takes them MUCH longer to share their opinion thanks to that same lack of subsidy.
But the above only points to some aggregious moves by individual reporters. Hell, if that were the benchmark, virtually NO press would be untainted. The National Post is a complete rage which fired every independant minded reporter and quite publicly states that it reports 'what it wants' , not 'what is news'.
And before anybody goes to the next thing they are going to say, I'll pre-empt them by telling them to go back and read the commments on what corporate welfare is. Canada has the most lax media regulations in the world which has led to the least representative media in the industrial world.
That lack of regulation is again a form of corporate welfare. Irving is far more subsidized in New Brunswick than the CBC is in canada, there is no contest. They even get most of their paper paid for, however, with a government that refuses to act in the interests of its public, THAT is a public subsidy. So in Canada the private media really can't be held to different standards than the CBC, the 'cost' of their subsidy is much much more.
That's just critical analysis, like I said, its easy to find plenty to be critical about the CBC, but 'liberal bias' certainly isn't one of them, and that media in general is Canada has a liberal bias is just laugh out loud funny.
The CBC didn't do anything. A journalist who works for the CBC may have (and keep in mind this is coming from Jean "sometimes the separatist" Lapierre) suggested questions that Pablo Rodriguez eventually used. Unless there is some sort of indication he was following some deep seeded Ceeb plot then it was an individual acting either ethical or non-ethical, depending on your own interpretation.
And before you get on a high horse about how this is an unfounded and unseen attack on journalistic integrity, this today from Paul Wells (who I think we can all agree is someone who calls things without political bias):
Don't tell Doug Finley...
Paul Wells | December 15, 2007 | 06:19:02 | Permalink
paul.wells@macleans.rogers.com
...but reporters have been planting questions with MPs at committee hearings since the dawn of time. I don't know whether I ever did it with Reform, Alliance or NDP MPs when the Liberals were in government, but I know it got done and if I had a story I needed advancing, I'd have done it in a second. "Hey, you might want to ask about..."
http://forums.macleans.ca/advansis/?mod=for&act=dip&pid=94859&tid=94859&eid=43&so=1&ps=0&sb=1
My apologies NBT. I didn't get that out of your post.
However that's the pervailing thought (witnessed a few times in the comments above) that those who criticize the CBC thinks there's a grand Liberal plot. Unfortunately that means the CBc and its supporters blow off all criticism, put its collective head in the sand and nothing gets fixed.
Actually, as a public broadcaster the CBC is far more adept at change than private broadcasters. IF there were a situation where there were large numbers of competitors then companies would be more susceptible to public pressures. However, CTV never really has to worry about a boycott.
The CBC though faces constant criticisms. As mentioned here, even though there is a disagreement over whether the act in question was even remotely aggregious, the CBC says it is looking at disciplinary action. The point above that says that a reporter lost their job because of a comment is further proof. NBT seems to think that 'because it occurred' is proof of bias, but editors are busy people and the discipline,one can easily argue, hardly fits the 'crime'.
Compare that to Irving or The National Post. When have you EVER heard of somebody fired for such a thing? Of course painting a politician as uncaring is about as easy as mentioning their name (its not necessarily true, but its certainly easy to deduce it).
As mentioned, The National POst sacked a whole group of people for simply being TOO 'open minded', few had been really censured for bad journalism, but the Post even came out and said what it was doing and why. Even though there were big public protests and lots of subscribers cancelling, they still had the money behind them to continue on until the flak faded.
But the CBC faces far more criticism, for some REAL criticisms just go to the wikipedia source for a fairly good article.
There may be instances of virtually EVERY type of bias, unfortunately, I've never seen any attempt at studying them. Like I said, Spinks only comes up with complaints when he sees something he doesn't like, but thats not 'bias'. Unfortunately there is no organization like FAIR in Canada to keep watch on the media in Canada.
What needs 'fixing' at the CBC is at least clear, although not amongst those here-89% think CBC is important and if anything should get MORE funding. For that I'd agree, because media in Canada is a sorry state. The CBC in NB barely functions there is virtually NO in depth coverage of any provincial issues. Just take a look at the CBC reporter who took time off twice to write two books-one on Bernard Lord, and one on the story about the Beaverbrook Art Gallery.
There are still no decent books about the Irving monopoly of media, or any analysis of any impact from one of the richest families in Canada. There's never been a book on its union busting, several forays into various industries, or ANYTHING. Meanwhile, there are dozens of books on the Asper family and their numerous holdings, but the CBC in New Brunswick only ever mentions Irving sporadically when really big stories turn up.
Good point, spinks. Though I would suggest that it's probably because the CBC not only slants the current news, they also form opinions (and shape political culture) by running such segments as Fifth Estate, which hasn't yet delved into the biggest scandal on record recently, ad scam. Not to mention, they have run numerous segments which have placed Trudeau in an adoring light while failing to run anything about other politicians, especially conservatives. What ever happened to our tax money paying for a bit of equity?
Anuway, I don't think their is some sort of black helicopter conspiracy over at Ceeb (as their online poll rated abortion as the number one issue facing Canadians). Although, there was a lot of chatter after the fact that it was hijacked by some sort of right wing conspiracy. which just goes to show you that people are surprised when another side of the story gets press and fair coverage.
A testament to the CBC which has done a fantastic job of shaping opinions in their favour. Too bad it's on our dime.
It really has become journalistic activism over the years at CBC NBT. As Mike point out (correctly I might add) other media outlets don't take the heat CBC should. That's because CBC sucks a billion taxpayer dollars a year. The others are private enterprises that succeed or fail on their own (short of some government handouts to produce programming and buy advertising but nowhere near the level of the Mother Corp.) Not sure wher Mike got his 89% of people thinking MORE money shoudl be plowed into CBC. During the last strike, people turned away in droves and in most cases didn't come back. The vast majority wouldn't even know CBC went off the air. They seriously need an overhaul. Most people that work there will quietly agree but so far no one has had the political will to force the necessary changes. There's a joke (although more often the truth than not) that any panel on a CBC program has three people, one from the left, one from the far-left and one from the loonie-left. Sorry mike, there are a tonne of liberal slanted programs on CBC yet I can't think of one that even offers a conservative point of view even on a semi-regular basis. The National at least tries sometimes with their political panel but the CBC could use a lot more diversity of thought.
Again, thats just Spinks opinion and you know what they say about opinions. Like I said, FIRST you have to define what you mean by conservative and liberal. Liberal is generally defined as maintaining that individual rights should be the priority of all political enterprises.
However, every dick and jane has their own definition. Again, we know exactly what Spinks idea of dialogue is, the fact that people who are a lot smarter than him are called 'the loonie left' shows just how much critical thought Spinks puts in and why he thinks there is a bias. The problem here is not with CBC, but with Spinks, although he'd never admit it. We could just call Spinks 'loonie' and be done with his opinion as well, loonie criticisms aren't something to be taken very seriously.
Just ask a simple question like how often somebody like Noam Chomsky ever shows up on CBC. The guy is a recognized expert on the middle east, is world renowned, and will literally talk to any media that contacts him. He NEVER shows up on any panel on any political issues, and the one time he was actually on CBC was on 'Hot Type' where he was literally grilled by Evan Solomon, something that virtually never happens when authors are interviewed. You can go to Youtube and watch the video, its literally the only time I've seen Noam Chomsky get upset with an interviewer. He was practically interrogated on the CBC, you can see a video of him on PBS or the BBC and compare the questions.
Or ask how often you hear them talk about Haiti or Canada's role in ousting a democratically elected President. It is virtually NEVER discussed. And thats simply foreign policy, not any 'right' or 'left' issue.
So the idea that CBC is biased in that way just doesn't hold up. Again, Spinks view of bias means 'they don't share my opinions' and 'opinions I really don't like are just crazy'.
But there is virtually no left wing dialogue at the CBC. Try going to TVO and watching The Agenda (you can watch it online) and you'll see far more diversity than at the CBC. Newsworld at least makes some attempt, but CPAC was started because the CBC was just so lousy at covering issues.
Again, give some examples, don't spout homilies. We KNOW that NBT and Spinks just don't like the CBC, so virtually anything they do will find critics here. Spinks is only happy if the CBC basically mirrors his views. That's fine for him, everybody probably wants that, but its hardly fair criticism. Even at his blog I've seen MAYBE half a dozen if that on the CBC, which is pretty low.
However, you can go look up that poll I mention, its at the wikipedia link. Spinks is always talking about CBC television, but only in New Brunswick. The CBC has far more programs than just news, and more than just television. Plus, the number of people in New Brunswick is tiny compared to the rest of the country. More people get their online news from CBC than any other website.
Again, read the comments. Private media companies get just as many subsidies-just of a different kind. Anybody that thinks Irving doesn't get subsidies is just living in la la land-talk about your loonie comments. Their is virtually no comparison in how many subsidies they get in New Brunswick versus CBC New Brunswick.
So unless somebody can prove that the Aspers don't get subsidized, again, go read the comments on corporate welfare, the fact that corporations pay one sixth the taxes you or I do is a form of corporate welfare.
So the excuse that 'we can be harder on CBC because its public' just doesn't wash. Again, IF you think there is a bias, at least say where it is. Otherwise its just p***ing in the wind.
SAYING over and over that something is true doesn't make it true, and the old argument "most people agree with me..", even "most CBC people agree with me.." is nonsense. EVERYBODY says that.
As the link says, the Alliance Party had criticisms of CBC, that wouldn't surprise me, because the Alliance party was publicly saying that it wanted to get rid of the CBC. When institutions get threatened, they react no matter if they are public or private. But that was long ago.
However, during the last ontario election there was a referendum where it was discovered the vast majority of ontarians didn't even understand the question. Meanwhile, CBC coverage of the referendum issue was virtually identical with other media at close to zero. Again, the only place that was different was TVO.
That shows 'bias', but not 'liberal' or 'conservative'. You could call it elitist, but its not even that, perhaps 'anti democratic' is the only appropriate word, although that has a lot of baggage, but in this case it appears to be appropriate.
*sigh* mike, you just always have to resort to insults don't you. You know what they say when you resort to insults. It means you have nothing else.
Liberal is generally defined as maintaining that individual rights should be the priority of all political enterprises.
Don't feed us that hooey, mike. You know darn well that classical liberalism has been dead for quite sometime now in the Liberal party of Canada.
No, they say you have nothing else when you only have four sentences. But we both know you've often put me in with that 'loonie left', so its not like insults are beneath Spinks as well.
However, all I said was that your comments can also be called 'loonie', so if you just don't resort to insults, then nobody else will. The other comment was that many of these people are smarter than you, so unless you are really megalomaniacal then you must admit that that is simply true, otherwise these people wouldn't be on television panel shows.
So thats only as insulting as you make it dude.
As for classical liberalism, the idea that individual rights should be the aim of political ideology, thats hardly dead, in fact up until about ten years ago it was pretty much accepted as fact. Individual rights are being rolled back lately, but not due to anything 'we' do.
But political PARTIES are a different story altogether and of course don't have much of an ideology at all. Like I said, the tory party is virtually identical to the liberal party in governing, so again, criticism should be muted.
But that is meant to define the debate, an institution can easily adhere to a political ideology, so its good to know you aren't talking about that.
If the argument is that they favour the liberals, again we have to point out that simply criticizing the government doesn't mean favouring the opposition. THere is certainly plenty of critical coverage of the liberal party on the CBC.
As for this story, I still haven't the foggiest why this is even mentioned so often. The only person that it even hopes to taint is Brian Mulroney. It has nothing at all to do with the 'new' conservatives and less to do with Harper.
Hell, there are conservatives doing hard time for breaking the law, so this is nothing, again, much ado about nothing to keep people from talking about actual issues.
*sigh*
Excerpt from the Agenda:
Steve Paikin: They wanna call you. Are you prepared for that?
"Fifth Estate" producer Harvey Cashore: Well, I’ve gotta, you know, think about what that means. My job as a journalist is not to go speaking to, you know, to be a function or an arm of a committee like that. My stories speak for themselves. So I would say what I’m excited about is they have the power to subpoena people who I couldn’t talk to. Let’s hear what they have to say.
--“The Agenda,” TVO, December 6
It's just curious, that is all.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home