George Stroumboulopoulos interviewed CBC News anchor Peter Mansbridge a little while ago and you’ll hear:

– How close he came to leaving Canada for a high-paying job for CBS

– How did the conversation with Knowlton Nash play out when Nash offered Mansbridge the anchor chair.

…and more.

Watch the video on The Hour’s recently redesigned web site.

A wee bit of photo fun submitted by Kate Dalgleish, pictured here.

If you’ve got a photo or funny mockup you’d like to submit, email insidecbcblog@gmail.com

There’s no money, but a small amount of glory will accrue.

A glowing story the other day in the Ottawa Citizen gushed about Global’s evening newscast moving to Ottawa. (Coincidentally, the Citizen is owned by CanWest Global, which also owns the Global Television Network. Imagine the odds.)

The story claimed that Global National had more viewers than either CTV’s or CBC’s national evening newscast:

BBM Nielsen Media Research figures show that Global National attracts a total audience of 952,100 compared with the later CTV News with Lloyd Robertson (917,300) and CBC National with Peter Mansbridge at 626,400.

Er, not quite.

Turns out, Citizen reporter Chris Cobb was a bit, uh, selective in his reporting of the viewership. Cobb reported only numbers from a single airing. The National airs on both the main network and on CBC Newsworld over different times, to let people watch when it’s most convenient to them.

From Monday to Thursday of last week, for example, The National had an average viewership of 1.19 million — well past CTV or Global. The National is, in fact, Canada’s most-watched newscast.

The CBC sent in a letter to the editor correcting the erroneous story. The Citizen has so far refused to publish it. Again, imagine the odds.

Alex Shprintsen has been a journalist for more than 15 years, first with the BBC and the Los Angeles Times, then the last 12 years with The National. During that time, he has been covering elections — democratic and and non-democratic — and shooting documentaries around the world.

Last night, he accepted the 2007 Peter Gzowski Literary Award of Merit.

The award, named in honour of the late veteran broadcaster and journalist Peter Gzowski, recognizes Mr. Shprintsen for his documentary series Canada’s Shame, which revealed the wide-ranging problem of low literacy among Canadian adults and profiled people who have been challenged with low literacy, including Jacques Demers, former coach of the Montreal Canadiens.

Alison Gzowski, daughter of Peter Gzowski, presented the award.

A couple of elections ago, I spent several weeks on the CBC’s election bus, crossing the country and collecting stories from the road about what Canadians think about federal politics. (Average response: “Meh.”)

One of my bus-mates was CBC Television reporter Mark Kelley. He and his team produced some beautifully shot, delicately crafted stories.

In the last couple of months, he’s been making some other great stories in a series for The National, called “Seven” where he spends seven days in someone else’s shoes.

From the CBC’s official text:

Kelley tries on a different lifestyle and a different point of view for a series of reports called “Seven.” He hitches a ride across the country, tackles a troubled class as their teacher, lives with homeless people, spends a week with evangelists and on a forest trail in B.C. He even takes suggestions from viewers on what seven-day challenge to face next.

In case you missed it, all the episodes are now online. Worth watching.

Forgive the blatently obvious plug, but I thought this was noteworthy.

I noticed tonight, while in my Regina hotel room (see pics I shot of the local cemetery), that The National was on-location in my hometown of Delta B.C. for the first in its series on global warming climate change.

It’s nice to see a week-long focus on the topic where they visit the actual locations that are having an impact (negatively or positively) on the issue.

Here’s what else is coming up this week on the topic:

• On Tuesday, The National visits the U.K. to report on how the Thames Barrier is letting the water in and what Londoners are doing to keep their city dry. The citizens of Happisburgh are fighting their government’s claims that there is nothing to be done to keep their hometown from sliding into the North Sea. In Northern Kenya, nomadic cattle herders are turning to farming due to the drought killing off their cattle. How are they preserving the rains when they finally come?
• Wednesday, April 4 takes viewers to the cultural centre of the ancient world where the Canadian International Development Agency is undertaking a project to convert dirty factories in an effort to produce cleaner and greener fuel in Cairo. The Egyptians also look to Israel for advice on stopping the sands from spreading.
• Holland is the land famous for building dikes and reclaiming land, but it is subject to devastating and deadly floods. On Thursday, April 5, The National looks to the past to see what Holland may be facing in the future in their efforts to cope with persistent flooding. Peru’s Andes region is one of the most vulnerable and fragile parts of the world for climate change, as a fifth of the glaciers have melted and there’s already a shortage of water. How are the farmers living near the roof of the world coping?

</cheapplug>

The timing couldn’t have been worse. Peter Mansbridge and his The National crew will be in Vancouver tonight to do their show from storm-battered Stanley Park. But yesterday afternoon, when a CBC sat-truck crew went to scope out the area for the broadcast, yet another storm caused a tree to smash the truck’s satellite and microwave dish, rendering it possibly a write-off the truck operator told CBC Radio’s Vancouver AM show this morning.
     The National’s broadcast will go ahead, though, thanks to a quick rental from a broadcast supplier.

Attention CBC folks: Anything interesting or newsworthy happening in your region? Be sure to let me know so you can share it with your colleagues across the country.

Following up on the interest in The National’s additional coverage of Canada’s armed forces this week, anchor and chief correspondent Peter Mansbridge weighs in with his thoughts in today’s Review section of the Globe and Mail:

Over the past five years, CBC News has spent considerable time and resources covering Canada’s armed involvement in Afghanistan. Not only is Afghanistan this country’s most challenging military operation in a half century, it is a crucial public policy issue that engages and concerns most Canadians.
     Our reporters have been covering every aspect of this operation - including the continuing debate as to “why” Canada is there. We have covered it from the front lines in Afghanistan to Canada’s Parliament in Ottawa, as well as many international conferences in between. We are proud of our coverage. And we know, from the positive response of so many Canadians to it, that it has been helpful to many in understanding the important issues in front of us all.
     Yesterday, The Globe’s TV columnist John Doyle, writing from the vantage point of what he calls his “TV Cranny,” found this effort positively “creepy.” He took particular exception with Monday’s special “On the Road” broadcast of The National from Edmonton, which looked at how families of those serving in Kandahar, or soon to go, are coping (rather well) and are helping support one another through the long separation.
     Doyle found this somehow a lapse in journalistic responsibility. He wrote: “Of course, any thinking, feeling person can grasp the difficulties facing families with a member serving in Afghanistan. It’s tough and emotionally wrenching. But we don’t need to be hit over the head with the message. Besides, the population is not united in support of our current role in Afghanistan.”
     Indeed, the public is not united over this role - as the CBC has clearly reported. In a poll this autumn, we showed that the Canadian public was split 52-48 per cent in favour. We also reported that 58 per cent did not believe the mission would succeed.
     The very same poll, however, showed the overwhelming majority of Canadians, whatever their views of about the Afghan mission, thought very highly of the military (73 per cent). So we don’t feel an obligation to act as if soldiers and their families should somehow remain an overlooked minority of no account, mere shadows in the corner of the holiday season.
     We have no apologies to make. Our coverage of the war has been praised by those for the mission and by those against. Reporters have in the past explored a great deal of the dirty underbelly of this war, often at personal risk.
     The CBC has operated 24/7 on the ground in Kandahar since the current mission landed there and is on frequent patrol with our forward troops.
     We have reported extensively not only on the heavy fighting of recent months, but also on the extremely difficult attempts to get civilian reconstruction programs under way.
     Brian Stewart’s recent documentary Road to Kandahar for the first time revealed the infighting within the military and cabinet over Canada’s initial role in Afghanistan. His regular “Inside the Mission” segment on The National examines the high cost and casualties of the war along with the shifts in public attitudes toward our commitment.
     There has been a countless number of reports, documentaries and interview segments on The National and our other CBC News television, radio and online programs and services.
     What is particularly offensive about Doyle’s column is his charge that CBC’s actions “give the appearance of an obedient press corps, placating the government.” What absolute nonsense.
     Not only has CBC News been covering this conflict - from all perspectives, including those who oppose Canada’s involvement - for several years before this current government was even elected, the CBC has been reporting on Canadian troops in war and conflict zones for 67 years.

War coverage is part of our network’s heritage. This does not show an obsession with the military     War coverage is part of our network’s heritage. This does not show an obsession with the military, as Doyle claims, but rather a determination to cover the story from all angles, with balance and an openness to many views, including those of family members missing loved ones at the front.
     These people do exist, and CBC News will continue to listen to them
too….. whatever the distress level in Doyle’s “TV Cranny.”

Update: Army.ca has critical comments about Doyle’s comment.

In an article called “CBC’s military obsession just feels creepy” Globe and Mail writer John Doyle opines that the CBC — in particular, The National — has become obsessed with presenting stories about Canada’s military

The other night, I turned on The National on CBC… [Peter Mansbridge] informed viewers that this special edition of The National was about “the home front” or some equally inane phrase. It was about our military and the mission in Afghanistan, in other words. But it was couched in we’re-all-in-this-together coverage of the military and their families in that Edmonton location.
     There was an air of giddiness and excitement. It was easy to tell how important it was — the actual news of the day was hurried along so that we could get back to talking about how great the military is….
     The CBC’s obsession with the military bespeaks a diminution of journalistic standards that is reprehensible at any time, but the clear and obvious linking of the military with the holiday season is simply appalling.

Blog reaction:

• Robin Rowland on military history (great article; recommended reading)

• To You From Falling Hands (military blog): “I have only one thing to say to John Doyle: pull your head out of your…” er, maybe you’d best read it yourself.
• Parkdale Pictures: “From the moment I heard that CBC News and the National were going to do a week of news from the “homefront” of the war in Afghanistan I felt uncomfortable. How was Afghanistan the homefront? Don’t the majority of Canadians oppose the mission there?”

What do you think? Is it journalistically unsound to present stories about Canada’s military? Are we doing too many stories about the military? Is our coverage balanced in your eyes?

The final chapter in Harpergate (hey, somebody had to use it) occurred last night with an apology from The National.
     The issue at hand: A Conservative blogger found what he believed was a clip of Stephen Harper taken out of context during a report on The National.
     The National agreed in a letter to a complainant and tonight mentioned it on its broadcast: “It appeared as if the Prime Minister was responding to that particular protester. In fact, he was responding to a general question from a journalist about public reaction to his stand on the war. We did not make that clear. We should have. And we regret that we didn’t.” [video]

Blog reaction:

• Stephen Taylor: CBC offers regret for Lawand piece: “One reader has already emailed to complain that an apology was not forthcoming (the CBC “regrets” what happened).”
• Abandoned Stuff: CBC regrets bad editing, but not bad debates yet: “Congratulations Stephen on your ability to get CBC to reconsider a broadcast element. If you can also assist with getting the CBC to broadcast the next Leaders Debates with all registered party leaders, that would be appreciated by even more Canadians.”
• Teamakers: Flinching and Smirking: “But instead of a straight-up apology he got a a strangely smirking flinch from Diana Swain, a performance worthy of a Gemini nomination.”

Low-blow, Ouimet and others. While at first it appears this “smirk” people are talking about is at the beginning, it’s clear to anyone who watches closely that Swain was reacting to an item prior to the apology. There’s no smirking throughout the rest of text of the apology.
     Usually the very last item in a newscast is a “kicker” — something oddball or humourous. (The only reason a kicker would be positioned penultimately is when there’s a programming note or apology. As in this case.)
     But alas, in this edited video, Swain’s previous story is clipped out, making her appear to smirk about the apology. Which makes the video posted on YouTube quite a bit out of context.
     Ironic, non?

Did you know you can watch The National on-demand for free? Yep, just click here to watch (you need the free RealPlayer installed). (The link is at cbc.ca/national under “Watch The National Online”) I never catch it at night, so I usually watch in the morning while I’m doing my first sweep of email. (This has been around for a while now, but many people don’t know about it.)

Updating the brouhaha around a report from The National in which conservative blogger Stephen Taylor said the report took Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s comments out of context, making him appear heartless.
     The National responded to a complaint from a blogger. In it, Jonathan Whitten says:

In the bulk of his answer, however, he explained that the issues were far larger than the concerns of some communities. These are “serious international issues, he said, “there are not only many lives at stake, there are a lot of long term strategic interests of this country and of the world.…” He talked about two major elements of the Canadian policy, about terrorist groups, both in Canada and abroad. He talked about humanitarian concerns, including evacuation and re-construction as being among the “focuses of our activity.”
     Then he returned to where he had started his answer and repeated: “I’m not concerned or preoccupied in any way with reaction within individual communities. I think that reaction is very predictable.” That was the clip included in the report following the protestor. It is logical to conclude here that the reaction he is “not concerned” with, is the kind of reaction personified by the protestor seen at the beginning of the report. Mr. Harper was talking about predictable reactions in general of which the protestor was a specific example. Some have argued that he was talking about polling within the Arab and Jewish communities, and while that’s possible, he was also discussing, in addition to polling, “reactions within certain domestic communities.” Far from being unrelated, as you suggest, the two are directly related.

However, Whitten added:

I do, however, agree with your concern about the structure of the report. The construction of the piece did make it appear the Prime Minister was responding directly to the woman protester, and that was not the case. We should have taken the time to make it clear that the Prime Minister was responding to a general question, and not a specific question about the woman’s concerns, and I regret that. While this does not constitute a misrepresentation of Mr. Harper’s position, or the position of his Government, the program could have, and should have, taken the time to be clear about what prompted the response.