The Tea Makers “Could Be Finished”
The Tea Makers, a blog that is almost always critical, sometimes incisive, and usually obsessive of the CBC, may be gone.
“It could be finished,” Allan Sorensen, one of the bloggers who frequently writes on the site said, adding “it’s too early to say.”
Sorensen said the issue was “behind the scenes drama which makes little sense.”
“I hope to see it return but some personal issues need to be resolved.”
The homepage of the site reads cryptically: “2005-2010 – He loved Big Brother.”
Internal disputes are not uncommon with the blog, in the past one of the guys, Fake Ouimet, or Anonymous Fake PoonGirl or somebody like that, deleted a all of their posts in some sort of fight.
|
Email This Post |
| Asides |
I’ll let you know what happens not sure myself.
It’s spelt PoonGirl btw, not Poongirl.
Good riddance.Served a purpose during the blackout, but like Stursberg, it should have been gone a long time ago. it devolved into one or two people who were stalker obsessed with Jian and George. ugly.
Gosh, that would be a real shame. Especially if it meant they’d start showing up here again.
Fake Ouimet restored all his postings, as even disingenuous Fort Dork ninnies know perfectly well.
I miss you Joe.
Tea He, it appears that that’s already happened
Well, this will be my last post here, so don’t worry about it.
that’s too bad. as is the news about blog. it serves a purpose.
Please, all of you, stop sucking up taxpayer dollars. Please just quit your jobs and rise above what is the dismal CBC. You all are capable of so much more. You can work hard, create wealth, contribute to society, prevent/cure ills, but instead, all you CBC employees contribute to public discontent and discord, while digging your own graves, much like that of the CBC. Canadians don’t like you. 4% of us watch you. We want our money back.
Please, give up now. Do us all a favour, and save your country a lot of time, money, and intelligence. You don’t HAVE to do it. You can just say ‘no’. Prove to the world you have a soul. Prove to the world that you’re better than government bureaucrats. Be honest with Canada and yourselves. Stop proliferating CBC’s laughable lies.
Please stop.
Delbert, as you’ll see in some other posts, CBC Televisions’s share is more like 10 per cent. Add in radio, which is at an all time market share high, and it’s likely double that. Add in online, which is the number 1 news site in Canada and it’s even higher. Not that a public broadcaster should be measured only the number of eyeballs/ears it gets, but the whole argument of ‘nobody watches the cbc’ is both false and self-serving. it’s just not true.
Paul, stop the lies. Here are some facts.
Over the course of the past year, CBC’s only programs to appear in the top 30 most-watched have been Hockey, and occasionally, Jeopardy:
http://www.bbm.ca/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=108&Itemid=87
Here’s Gatenburg in mid-July. CBC didn’t even have one show in the top-30:
http://www.bbm.ca/_documents/top_30_tv_programs_english/2010/nat07122010.pdf
As you’ll see in some other posts, Paul, the CBC garners a farrrr lower percentage of market share than your claimed ten percent. But we can go on and on and on.
More to the point, as a CBC employee, you are dishonest to yourself and the world. Are you proud of what you do for a living? You *know* that you represent only one side of the political spectrum, but you ignore this. Do people snicker when you announce that you ‘proudly’ blow the CBC horn while earning 60,000 dollars per year? (As a matter of fact: how many of my tax dollars do you earn? Can someone research this and post it? I’d like to know.)
You have two options. Option 1: convince someone to pay you for your service. SInce you are unable to do so, you vie for option 2: vote for whichever politician promises you free, easy money to proliferate socialism. Hundreds of thousands of you band together from across Canada to demand that *I*, Delbert, pay you to exist. As a CBC employee, you are a parasite. You strive for the unfair and evil. You use democracy for nefarious purposes.
Paul, who did you vote for in the previous three federal elections? Answer: whichever party promised to not cut funding to the CBC. Western civilization is dying due to the ‘artificial’, in so many of its forms; one of many being the CBC.
What a time to end it. Actually looked it up for the first time in ages to see what they had to say about Richard Stursberg’s sudden exit.
What a time to end it. Actually clicked on it for the first time in ages to see what they had to say about Richard Stursberg’s sudden exit. That all I found was this Big Brother quote shows how far they’ve strayed from their original purpose.
Delbert: Speaking as part of the audience whose existence you deny?
You’re wrong.
CBC’s value lies at least partly in the fact that it does not act as the local version of Soviet-era Pravda for the government of the day, no matter who makes up the composition of that government. They are doing work that has value to many people, as Paul noted in his own response to your posting. On radio, on TV, on the Internet. And, I hope, one day soon once more, in print as well. There used to be a “CBC Books” operation not too many years ago, and it did good work. I believe that it can do so again.
As to the change in status at Tea Makers…this is indeed disturbing.
audience share and top 30 are different. that’s why I said audience share. otherwise I’m proud to work for a corporation that values truth and is courageous enough to pursue in service of the public.
and while you’re digging up numbers, how about some numbers on radio and online?
further looking at TV audience numbers for a single week in the middle of the summer doesn’t mean much it. that is unless you have figured out a way to add up those numbers to the 4% you quoted. also you might want to look at the numbers for French Canada, which the CBC also serves. with respect, paul.
Delbert:
What about Battle of the Blades? Hugely popular.
“I’m proud to work for a corporation that values truth and is courageous enough to pursue in service of the public.”
Don’t lie, Paul. You’re ashamed. You’re frustrated that your monopoly is unable to garner an audience or report on ‘real’ news stories. You acknowledge the political bias, but don’t admit it.
Your truth exists only from the vantage point of one part of the political spectrum, and employs mainly supporters of that said political spectrum. Break this down for me, honestly: what percentage of CBC employees do you think, vote for which party:
1 – Liberal
2 – BLOC
3 – Conservative
4 – NDP
5 – Green
Be honest now. I can tell you that most employees of the SUN chain vote conservative. CTV is more fractured, but probably Liberal. How about the CBC?
As already demonstrated, the CBC is not courageous enough to report a plethora of topics as mentioned in previous comments.
I believe that you probably are ashamed of yourself, Paul. You can’t even admit your bias. You proliferate one-sided political ideology to apathetic Canadians, and pass it off as ‘neutrality.’
But it’s not all your fault: almost everyone at the CBC does this. There’s an institutionalised bias.
“further looking at TV audience numbers for a single week in the middle of the summer doesn’t mean much. respectfully, paul.”
Then look at any of them! Or contact BBM for historical data! In the past 5 years, CBC has virtually been excluded from the top-30 most-watched shows, except for hockey and jeopardy.
CBC radio 1 attracts anywhere from 9 – 12% of the market share. (which means: 9 – 12% of Canadians WHO LISTEN TO THE RADIO regularly listen to CBC.) Provide me a link which indicates exactly how many Canadians regularly listen to the radio, aside from the 20 minute drive to work. Anyhow, the # is small.
The CBC website attracts many readers, a sizeable chunk of whom visit only to criticize the reporting. Nevertheless, many visitors are attracted. But is a website worth taxpayer dollars?
You budget will continue to shrink. Canadians continue to tune out. Liberal civil servants at CBC will continue to lose their jobs. Hopefully you do something useful at the CBC, and will keep yours. I’m singling you out, because I’m a little person. You are also a little person, but you represent an evil, totalitarian, lying, partisan, unaccountable, scared monopoly. You’re all very afraid. You’re very powerful (for now), but are engaged in a struggle. And you;re losing.
“What about Battle of the Blades? Hugely popular.”
Maybe it’s even good enough to actually convince someone to pay for it, rather than strongarming me for its expenses! Wouldn’t that be great!?
Delbert is the type of rabid anti-CBC troll who makes their tiresome bile known at all the usual dittohead sites, trying to sell the canard that Canada is a Conservative country when the consistent minority mandates and Harper’s inability to garner more than 35% support puts the lie to their rabid-ness. The anti-CBC zealots from Kory T on down (Kory actually managed to run down the Corp while taking money from it, which is rich) represent no one else save maybe their ideological cousins in the Tea Party.
But cherrypicking one week’s ratings when no one is traditionally watching TV is, of course, more relevant than the recent study showing CBC’s news was in fact, exactly where it should be in terms of offering critical coverage of the various parties, with any numerical difference in critical stories about the Cons fully in line with the fact that they are the serving government, therefore making policy and driving news, and therefore more naturally open to critical stories.
These guys act like CBC never covered the Sponsorship scandal — the very thing that soured Canadians on the Liberals and bought their boys to power.
Facts are inconvenient things. And any news organization that tries to cover real news, and not just shill for a political party full time must endeavor to report the stories that reflect the facts — not the spin as one group would like it to be.
It’s been almost half a decade since the Cons came to power, and these guys are still looking for enemies lists and people to blame.
If CBC Radio can be the number one morning show in Calgary Alberta (which it has been for a long time) then right there, Delbert’s thinking, such as it is, is shown for the parochial and manifestly narrow tripe that it is.
In a way, the rabid CBC haters from the Small Dead Animals Fact-Free zone and the wingnuts at the Teamakers were a good match. Made for each other like Howard Stern’s Wack Pack — only devoid of the laughs.
Governments will come and go. But the important thing to remember is this: Delbert, do your best to try and take away the CBC. There are more of us than there are of you. And we’re in all 10 provinces and two territories, not concentrated in the West and disgruntled Northern Ontario.
You want the fight? Bring it. You’re gonna lose. Because the institution of the CBC is worth preserving, and for all its faults is a thousand times better than anything you’d see it replaced with.
Delbert, I’m neither ashamed or frustrated.
Well, that’s not entirely true, it does frustrate me that the entire conversation in this country sometimes breaks into the dogma of which ‘side of the political spectrum,’ you supposedly represent. as if every issue in this country neatly adheres to the position of the varies parties aligned along a single line of the ‘political spectrum’. it frustrates me that Canada is starting to adopt a political dialogue that is more adversarial than conversational. it frustrate me that the value of political discourse is lost in the simplicity of:
1 – Liberal
2 – BLOC
3 – Conservative
4 – NDP
5 – Green
otherwise, most Canadians drive to work, and in many of the major urban markets, they choose the ceeb.
As far as Canadians tuning out, that’s not true, here’s the truth: http://www.insidethecbc.com/uploads/20100114_CBCshare.jpg. You may also want to check out: http://www.insidethecbc.com/cbc-tv-hits-highest-ratings-in-five-years/ . Radio numbers are here: http://www.insidethecbc.com/cbc-radio-extends-streak/
As you can see Canadians are actually tuning in, not out.
re: blades. actually the show more than pays for itself.
You call two percentage points “success”?
Aren’t your examples kind of like saying: “Good news! Canadian students’ SAT scores are no longer declining, but remaining stagnantly and pitifully low!” ?
Didn’t CBC employees run the teamakers site? Perhaps senior management put an end to it?
Denis Mcgrath, you’re already losing. Funding is being cut every year. It’s just not fast enough for me. And in all fairness, LESS than 35% of Canadians are Conservatives, evidenced by, what… a 57% turnout at the last election? My point is, your numbers are tiny in terms of support for the CBC. From your blog posting: “Of course share only captures people who listen to radio.” I repeat: 12% of RADIO LISTENERS tune into the CBC.
That’s pitiful. As for TV, it’s not “one week’s ratings”. It’s any week of the year. I like facts.
To close, I am not suprised that you’re a “tea party”-hating socialist who represents the same political spectrum as the CBC.
Enjoy your budget cuts.
“blades. actually the show more than pays for itself.”
You state this as if it’s an anomoly. Please list CBC ventures which have LOST money, if you can fit them on this page.
What exactly was the “tea makers” site all about?
I looked at it a couple of times but it just looked like another dull CBC insider blog.
the corporation’s mandate is not to make money. it is to serve Canadians. I’m sorry that you’re not happy with that.
Delbert I’m not sure what success looks like to you. Perhaps when 100% of the audience tunes in? In TV land a couple of percentage points is a massive shift.
The point is that your numbers are questionable. But I don’t say this to incite you, ultimately it’s your opinion, I just wanted to correct a few inaccuracies.
“the corporation’s mandate is not to make money. it is to serve Canadians. I’m sorry that you’re not happy with that..”
Please don’t put words in my mouth.
*You’re* the one who was just trying to convince me that CBC is successful.
And the CBC certainly, demonstrably does serve about 10% (probably less) of Canadians, mostly g-20 protesting left-wingers, so good on that.
In short, the mandate is not nearly met, and pro-CBC’ers are Harper-hating leftwingers.
I’m glad we had this conversation.
“The point is that your numbers are questionable. But I don’t say this to incite you, ultimately it’s your opinion, I just wanted to correct a few inaccuracies.”
But, wait a second, you just said the #’s don’t matter..
well, to be blunt, I didn’t say that numbers don’t matter, I essentially said that your numbers don’t matter, because they’re not right.
I would love to know what would make you realize that the corporation, right down to the core of every individual that works for it, actually wants to serve Canadians. We really do. Again I’m sorry you feel it doesn’t serve you.
Paul, the guy is a troll. You’re not writing to try and reach him. You’re just doing what you do — put the links up for the non-crazy so that Delbert’s blather isn’t the only thing they read.
When you read something like “enjoy your budget cuts,” that’s not an argument, that’s a troll comment. It’s not engagement.
When facts don’t matter, there is no baseline for argument.
Yeah, you COULD write a masters thesis on Teamakers and all the mirth mayhem, skullduggery and controversy that enshrouded it.
Why not just look at it like this …
1. A guy started a blog during the 2005 lockout, not knowing where it was going. He had some inside dope on the Corp ‘cos he worked there. And he loved CBC, and had good ideas and observations that made CBCers and CBC-o-philes alike have a laugh, or think a little deeper about things.
2. That blogger left CBC, but kept the site alive.
3. Various custodians attempted to bring new voices to the site with mixed results. One guy mistook this light-hearted site as a soap box for his oppressive take on things, mistaking satire as Journalism and trying to moralize and ‘clean up’ something that was never intended for such serous matters.
4. Finally, the site became a vanity press / bathroom wall for reportage and spiteful commentary on CBC stars. Much of it was actually pro-CBC in a roundabout way. What happened though, was that many non-regulars to the site could not understand the tones of commenters and the attempts at humour, and became violently or psychotically irate.
This was also responsible for drawing in the crowd I will refer to as ‘CBC Existentialsts’ – those who believe that CBC begins and ends at English terrestrial television, and who generally believe that that narrow sliver of CBC that in their minds should be shut down or privatized.
5. For personal reasons that are nobody’s business but the originator of the blog, it was shut down in favour of lighter, more important life pursuits.
Ironically, all the long winded META discussions about the site, the CBC and its milieu, as well as about all the free speech and moral controversy over its 5 year history have NOTHING to do with its closure.
6. True Teamakers – CBCers and Non CBCers alike including Dwight, Johnny Happypants, Neutron, Kev, A-nony-nony, Patrice Nortel and many, many others will not find the Orwell quote to be cryptic, but completely a propos of the 5 year history of Ouimet’s endaevour.
Good work, Ouimet. Hats off for all your efforts, even when they created unexpected results.
Oh, and, GET WELL SOON, TODD! TEAMAKERS FOREVER!
Talking about a one-person dogpile campaign!
Gee, Delbert…that argument of yours lumps all of the voters who went with the Liberals together with those voting for the Bloc, Greens, NDP, two different flavours of Communists, NeoRhino.ca(heirs of the old Rhinoceros Party), Christian Heritage, First Peoples, Western Block(founded by the trial lawyer who’s defended everyone from Zundel to Keegstra), Canadian Action, Progressive Canadian(founded by Tories who left after McKay and Harper cut their deal), and a Newfoundland/Labrador separatist party for good measure!
That’s an interesting definition of “left-wingers”.
“I would love to know what would make you realize that the corporation, right down to the core of every individual that works for it, actually wants to serve Canadians. We really do. Again I’m sorry you feel it doesn’t serve you.”
We’re going in circles. It doesn’t serve *most* Canadians, seeing as how few of us tune in, except for g-20 protesters on CBC’s Saturday call-in shows to complain about how mean the police are.
CBC’s “journalists”, all 10,000 of them, endorse and propagate the redistribution of wealth and affirmative action on which they rely.
The voice from the telescreen was still pouring forth its tale of prisoners and booty and slaughter, but the shouting outside had died down a little. The waiters were turning back to their work. One of them approached with the gin bottle. Winston, sitting in a blissful dream, paid no attention as his glass was filled up. He was not running or cheering any longer. He was back in the Ministry of Love, with everything forgiven, his soul white as snow. He was in the public dock, confessing everything, implicating everybody. He was walking down the white-tiled corridor, with the feeling of walking in sunlight, and an armed guard at his back. The longhoped-for bullet was entering his brain.
He gazed up at the enormous face. Forty years it had taken him to learn what kind of smile was hidden beneath the dark moustache. O cruel, needless misunderstanding! O stubborn, self-willed exile from the loving breast! Two gin-scented tears trickled down the sides of his nose. But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Brother.
This was all started by a communication guy who worked for CBC, caused a lot of work to his own colleagues and at the end left the company to go rant about other employers. How sad.
CBC’s reporting often has memory holes! Good thing most Canadians disregard the totalitarian omnicient CBC, which is the closest thing to an INGSOC mouthpiece from here to Myanmar!
Most Canadians don’t think Toronto Police are the bad guys, and i think even CBC reported this survey! Most Canadians are happy that g-20 CBC-loving hippies were thrown in jail!
Most Canadians, Delbert? Or most Canadians whose opinions matter to you?
I hate to break this to you Delbert, but most journalists lean towards the left. The whole nature of journalism is to ask questions, to have a dialogue… People who tend to lean to the right don’t get into journalism.
You can’t do much about that.
Paul Mcgrath says:
the corporation’s mandate is not to make money. it is to serve Canadians. I’m sorry that you’re not happy with that.
Paul Mcgrath says:
Delbert I’m not sure what success looks like to you. Perhaps when 100% of the audience tunes in? In TV land a couple of percentage points is a massive shift.
Paul Mcgrath says:
I would love to know what would make you realize that the corporation, right down to the core of every individual that works for it, actually wants to serve Canadians. We really do. Again I’m sorry you feel it doesn’t serve you.
================
Paul, it may not please you to know this, but I think you’re a nice guy. But the sentiments revealed in the three statements by you (cut and pasted above) reveal a lot of the same circuitous logic and longing for the old days that CBC fans use. Vis: You’re not in the business of making money, but you take money from Canadians to “serve” them; you claim to be serving Canadians by penetrating only 10% or thereabouts of Canadian homes (and cars and portable devices; and you point to the missionary zeal amongst the ranks as evidence that 10% is all it takes to satisfy the missionaries.
It’s ironic that you quote a passage from the classic dystopian work “1984″ (also anti-communist/statist, I might add) as that novel pretty much illustrated what happens when the zealous are in charge. Whether they eventually realize that their cause is terribly flawed, or not, the delusion is as deep as the eventual disillusionment.
Assuming the figure of 10% is correct, how much longer do you think the missionary zeal will hold? Canadians are asking: What are we getting for our billion+ $ investment. Perhaps the zealots should be asking themselves why 90% of the people they live to “serve” don’t find the service all that essential.
Life sucks, I know.
I would have no idea who this alleged “communication guy who worked for CBC” might be. Alphonse Ouimet is David Séguin, who was always a Web developer there till he left the country.
I remain the only Tea Makers contributor who is willing to answer questions, e.g. by legitimate journalists doing a legitimate story, should anybody want to write one. (Somehow I doubt Allan or PoonGirl will want to talk.) At the moment, this thread has become much worse than a parody of a Tea Makers thread.
That might well be true re: Journalism and Leftiness. But it’s still a proven canard by any empirical standard. The owners of the papers and organizations of private newsgathering in Canada are anything but Left Wing. The same is true in the States. Crying “Lefty!” is the Boy who cried wolf solution to frighten small l liberals into bending over backwards to prove they’re objective.
Which they’re not, but they’re also nowhere near the left. The two things that have thrown politics and discourse in North America out of whack is the redefinition of the far-right as the “centre.” liberal-leaning thinking for the majority has moved centre in the last few decades, where the right has consistently tried (abetted by their allies on the religious right) to re-define the centre as considerably right from where it normally stood.
So you have the odd and discombobulating spectacle of Obama being called a socialist for espousing policies that are virtually indistinguishable in many cases from Saint Ronald Reagan.
The second thing that’s damaged discourse is the triumph of political over policy in the right. They’ve purged all their intellectuals and thinkers, the ones with ideas. The ones who haven’t stayed ideologically pure get purged and thrown out, and the only people left are the strong arms and the dummies. There’s nothing to talk about anymore. The right has no economic ideas except for those they discredited through implementation in the 80′s, and the Left – such as it is — fights and negotiates with itself.
A historic coalition as happened in the UK recently could not really happen here because the smart people have left the field. All that’s left is the Delberts and the Glenn Becks and the Sarah Palins, and the counterparts on the other side who are at best, feckless.
So Joe, what happened?
isn’t a parody of a tea makers thread a double negative?
Louise, that’s the nicest thing a stubble jumping redneck has ever said to me.
As for 10 per cent, it’s actually an indicator of success. in a 500-channel universe, 10 per cent is pretty big. I doubt CTV gets more than 15 or 20. To me this indicates service.
1984. Isn’t that what happens when dogmatic, lying dictators are in charge? Wouldn’t a vibrant media landscape, not beholden to corporate or government interests, defend against the dystopian world of 1984.
I don’t see the irony.
Otherwise I find it’s a common mis-step to mistake the CBC/Radio-Canada corporation with CBC Television or CBC News. They are divisions within the corporation yes, but they are not the whole corporation. So to say that 10 of people watch CBC TV, and therefore 90 don’t use the service is false. You are neglecting to include radio, online, aboriginal language services, the foreign service, educational outreach, sports, documentary etc. etc. That service is used by millions, yes millions, of people every single day.
respectfully, paul.
“As for 10 per cent, it’s actually an indicator of success. in a 500-channel universe, 10 per cent is pretty big. I doubt CTV gets more than 15 or 20. To me this indicates service.”
Fact: CBC-tv spends more than Global or CTV but without fail garners fewer viewers. But you said yourself that it’s natural for CBC to be unwatched and unsuccessful.
“not beholden to corporate or government interests, ”
Paul, the CBC is a government-owned entity which operates at the very whim of said government and the voting populace, hence your continued budget cuts. You’re not free from government: You *ARE* government.
Corporations were banned in 1984. Kim Jong il loves the CBC.
Paul, who did you vote for in the last federal election?
Delbert, I’m happy to discuss issues with you, or facts or even your ‘facts’. But I’m tired of your personal jabs. It’s not about me. It’s about bias, funding, taxes, government, abortion, broadcasting, whatever, but not me. Taking jabs at me is the antithesis of a argument, or even better, a conversation. A certain amount of respect is required on this blog, and in life generally. if you can’t focus on issues, and leave the personal stuff behind, you should head elsewhere.
thanks for your attention.
Joe, so what’s the story?
Well since there’s been Orwell quoting in this thread, for some reason Delbert puts me in mind of a quote from “A Fish Called Wanda”
“Apes don’t read philosophy.”
“Yes they do [Delbert]. They just don’t understand it.”
Good luck, Paul.
Denis, it’s really nice to see you on this blog.
War is peace, Paul.
and one more thing Delbert, if the “CBC is a government-owned entity which operates at the very whim of said government” why are said government, and by extension, many bloggers, so angry at the CBC. doesn’t seem like a very whimsical relationship.
Paul Mcgrath says: “As for 10 per cent, it’s actually an indicator of success. in a 500-channel universe, 10 per cent is pretty big. I doubt CTV gets more than 15 or 20. To me this indicates service.”
You missed the point. Why does the public need to fund the CBC in a 500 channel universe? Even if it was 20%, like your primary competitor in the Canadian market, why is it necessary to use public funds to get your share of the audience, and how many people aren’t watching any television at all? If capturing an audience share doesn’t matter as much as some insider’s assumption that a particular program has value, even if no one watches it, just how can the argument that you are “serving Canadians” stand?
Paul Mcgrath says: “Wouldn’t a vibrant media landscape, not beholden to corporate or government interests, defend against the dystopian world of 1984.”
Of course it would and does, but CBC IS beholden to government for its funding AND for populating its governance structure. One would have to be brain dead to think that that doesn’t have an impact on programming decisions. More importantly, why have CBC staff had such hissy-fits about the new network, Sun TV? That’s rather Big Brotheresque, in a Ministry of Truth sort of way, no?
Why is a 10 or 20% audience share, then, considered a “defense” against dystopia? I would think the other 80 or 90% is where the defense against dystopia comes from.
Finally, what evidence do you have that the 10%, or whatever it is, that watch CBC television are not the same 10 or whatever percent that listen to CBC radio and comment on CBC website news stories? Just because you have several venues where people can show up, doesn’t mean it isn’t the same group of people in each place.
It’s interesting to see that you personally visited my blog. I’ve been getting a lot of hits from CBC since I started commenting here.
Is Denis your brother? Is he your Big Brother? (Okay, that last one was a joke.)
Louise, you make me laugh. He’s neither.
Why use public funds? Because the majority of publics, not just in Canada, but around the world in one OECD country after another, have decided that a certain amount of public support for public broadcasting supports, shores up, and educates the democratic discourse. I would hope we can both agree on the importance of that.
re: CBC beholden to the goverment. Really? So why does this happen?
re: 10 per cent. I don’t have any evidence that there aren’t double dippers. But most people struggle to listen to the radio, the TV and surf online at the same time. At least I do.
re: your blog. I went there to check out what a stubble jumping redneck is. Now I know.
And what of the people around the rest of the world – who’ve never knowingly paid into the CBC through their taxes, but nonetheless find what we’ve put together through CBC’s operations worth watching, listening to, and reading on a regular basis? Some of them even buy stuff from cbcshop.ca, if memory serves. I’ve seen what used to be fairly called “unsolicited endorsements” from any number of such people.
Paul; this *is* about you. You signed on for this debate when you joined the CBC. You work for a very political institution and are accountable to the public and to government. By asking you to identify your left-wing affiliation, I meant little disrespect. Go ahead and ask me which party I vote for — I won’t mind. As a CBC employee, you are a public servant. You are a government bureaucrat. You don’t work in the private sector, and can’t do whatever you want. Your reticence to disclose your left-wing politics is not too surprising, as government employees are almost always discouraged from being “political”. You use democracy nefariously and trick the public into paying for a makeshift Green Party media office (which is also funded with tax dollars), except you and your 10,000 fellow emplopyees claim neutrality. It’s one of the largest cases of corruption in Canadian history.
You work for the state, and I thus realize that disclosing your left-wing affiliation may be breaking a contract. I thought I’d ask.
You’re lucky that most Canadians view the CBC as simply boring and unwatchable, rather than damagingly radical and institutionally destructive. Many Canadians are apathetic; they don’t know the difference between ‘right’ and ‘left’. But you and I do. And your neutrality mirrors the rabid left-wing views rampant among my detractors on this board.
Approx 161 Members in our House of Commons, for the same reasons as you, value the CBC’s attempts to sway public opinion.
It takes time. The CBC won’t be dismantled overnight. We’ll do it piece by piece.
I have one request: can someone who wants *low* taxes, wants the tamil boat *turned back*, who *disagrees* with unfettered welfare payments, who wants to visit *any* doctor they darn-well choose — and there are millions of us — please come out in support of the CBC? I have yet to witness this.
To close, thanks for castigating me, and not your left-wing friend, Denis.
Paul Mcgrath says: “Why use public funds? Because the majority of publics, not just in Canada, but around the world in one OECD country after another, have decided that a certain amount of public support for public broadcasting supports, shores up, and educates the democratic discourse. I would hope we can both agree on the importance of that. ”
I’d like to know when those “publics” made that decision and how the same “publics” might go about reversing the decision, should they no longer hold to that sentiment.
In my opinion, public funding of broadcasting, or any other form of media, has the opposite effect. It certainly risks the opposite effect.
Broadcasters that receive public funding are not as free, or at least not as inclined, as privately owned broadcasters to attack governments if they are generous to them. That should be obvious. You don’t bite the hand that feeds you.
To foster democratic “discourse” what is needed is a vast range of competing voices, which is one of the reasons I found CBC staffers’ knee-jerk reaction to the announcement of SunTV so disturbing (although not unexpected).
We all know of countries where the state run broadcaster is the purveyor of state propaganda, and nothing else. Baghdad Bob, anyone? Those are the same countries where freedom of the press is severely restricted or non-existent.
…………………………………
Paul Mcgrath says: “re: CBC beholden to the goverment [good to see I'm not the only one with stubby fingers - here's the missing "n"]. Really? So why does this happen? ”
“This” happens because of this (note the pie chart).
In the competition for public funds, the CBC knows which party is their best bet and which “causes”, such as AGW, to champion in order to speak to that party’s base.
Hence, they ignored Climategate citing the unethical breech of privacy and what they presumed was “hacking” rather than whistleblowing, but think nothing of putting up the Wikileaks documents on their website, inviting any and all comers to scan through them for juicy details, without, apparently, considering what the consequences might be for Afghans or Canadian forces in the arena.
In the old days, that could have been seen as treason. If the Americans ever get their hands on Assange, they will likely put him on trial for espionage, the penalty for which is death, yet CBC plays with this, salivating all the while. There are times when CBC’s attempt to appear non-biased works against Canadians and our allies. When you put our troops at risk, whose interests does that serve? Anti-war crowd, anyone? Now there’s a bastion of right-wing thought. /Not.
If the CBC is not biased toward liberal do-gooder causes, why does this happen?
CBC is biased. In the TVO video at the link, Burman even refers to CBC as the “Canadian government’s broadcaster” along with liberal (pun?) doses of anti-Americanism.
Did he and Avi Lewis get the boot, the golden handshake, or was their departure purely coincidental?
Surely to God, it doesn’t take a giant leap of logic to see the connection between the source of one’s livelihood and the necessity to pander to that source.
Since the CBC’s Board of Directors is overwhelmingly capital “L” Liberal and has been for nearly 75 years, that shouldn’t be a big surprise. What Party doesn’t award its stalwarts with nice sinecures?
Paul Mcgrath says: “re: 10 per cent. I don’t have any evidence that there aren’t double dippers. But most people struggle to listen to the radio, the TV and surf online at the same time. At least I do.”
I’m glued to my keyboard. I routinely surf, watch online video and listen to streaming audio at the same time. That doesn’t mean I’m actually understanding any of it, with all three things happening simultaneously. According to your scenario would that count as three people?
Indeed, sometimes I’ve wandered off to the kitchen while all this distraction is happening, so maybe it’s sometimes zero.
Besides, there is no reason to assume that Canadians that consume CBC services are as crazy as I am. Since many of your broadcasts can be viewed/listened to after the real time broadcast, I think your argument might be more wishful thinking than reality.
Besides, I’m surprised CBC doesn’t use some sort of metrics to track usage so they can report to funders and Canadians at large, with greater precision, about who watches/listens/hits what and how often. That’s just a common-sense good business practice, especially for publicly funded agencies.
Far more openess and transparency is required. Old fashioned accountability and all that. Isn’t that in the spirit of democracy?
Delbert, I really don’t understand what significance there is to the political affiliation of anybody who works at CBC, whether Paul or anybody else. I suspect that there are CBC employees who vote Conservative, just the same as there are likely civil servants currently working in government ministries who vote Liberal, NDP, or Green despite the fact that their “bosses” at the moment happen to be Conservatives. Also, there are many people, myself included, who have never voted exclusively for the same party all of our voting lives. I’m 50 now, and take pride in the right to vote, having never missed voting in either a federal or provincial election. But in my long voting history, I’ve voted at times for the NDP, and even the former PC, though I’ll grant you that I’ve voted Liberal more often than not.
My point is, not everybody lives by an unyielding loyalty to a strict political ideology as you seem to. Fact is, I’m more of a centrist type myself, who leans a bit to the left on most issues, but a bit to the right on a few others. I appreciate moderate conservative values and have sometimes voted that way, particularly when I thought there was a fiscal problem that needed reining in. But more than questions of being “left” or “right”, I prefer to see things in terms of intelligence and common good. That’s why I’ve been a long time supporter of what the CBC has historically always done better than the private networks.
At its best, CBC offers up smart programming that is introspective and challenges viewers to think more about the world around them. And yes, that includes programs like The Fifth Estate and The Nature of Things, two shows that I know you neo-cons love to hate. I believe that’ shows like these are important, yet I’m not seeing anything on the private networks like that anymore, even though it used to exist many years ago. CBC, as a public broadcaster, should be continuing to provide at least some shows of such substance, since the private networks currently have made it quite clear that they only want to provide junk food for the mind, as that is sadly what seems to pull in more “eyeballs” from undiscerning viewers. Unfortunately, intelligence doesn’t get the big ratings, which I think is a tragic reflection on society today. But I still believe that public broadcasting must fill that need, which is why I continue to support the CBC, while reserving the right to be critical of it as well.
Oh, and referencing Europe these days isn’t such a convincing argument, either. They’re teetering on the brink of bankruptcy after years of state funded everything.
Pete in ‘Sauga says: “My point is, not everybody lives by an unyielding loyalty to a strict political ideology as you seem to.”
The topic is CBC and its ideological bent. So how do you know that Delbert is “unyielding” “to a strict political ideology” on other issues? I am like you. I don’t fit perfectly into the Conservative mold, at least not the mold as it is defined by non-Conservatives. For all we know, neither does Delbert. I don’t know of anyone who does.
In my youth I was far more “unyielding” than I am now and in those days I always voted NDP in provincial elections and Liberal in federal elections (and yes, that meant Trudeau). But as I grew older and learned more about how the world works I abandoned all respect for the NDP and will never vote for them again. The Liberals may, and that’s a big may, get my vote again some day, but they’d have to undergo a rebirth in order to attract my vote again, and at the moment, there doesn’t seem to be anyone in that party thinking about doing that in a serious way, let alone the leadership to get it done. So. That’s my history. Please reserve you stereotyping for others, or perhaps, quit the habit altogether. It doesn’t help the Liberal cause, and that, by the way, is one of the reasons I cannot vote Liberal today. It is a party of bankrupt stereotypes and not much more.
———————————–
Pete in ‘Sauga says: “I prefer to see things in terms of intelligence and common good. ”
Implying that Delbert is neither intelligent nor interested in common good? Inquiring minds want to know? If so, what does it take to be seen as intelligent and interested in common good? Total agreement with your point of view? Reading Delbert’s comments, I would say he’s in possession of considerable intelligence. He articulates his thoughts clearly. His sentence and paragraph structure are just fine. It seems to me there is nothing in what he says or how he says it that would betray a lack of intelligence.
Pete in ‘Sauga says: “At its best, CBC offers up smart programming that is introspective and challenges viewers to think more about the world around them.”
Long ago, perhaps, but not now. At 61, it no longer has the capacity to challenge me to think about anything but refraining from throwing something at the boobtube. Most of it is high school or college freshman level and reflects the ideology poured into my head by professors in the social sciences faculties forty years ago, so I would say, it hasn’t kept up with the times, either. Ain’t my bag, in any case.
Pete in ‘Sauga says: “And yes, that includes programs like The Fifth Estate and The Nature of Things, two shows that I know you neo-cons love to hate”
The Fifth Estate is boring. It’s been on waaaaaay too long The Nature of Things can sometimes be interesting, but there are a great many alternative sources for that sort of information. Books, for example. The Internet for another. What might be more correct, is to say that we “neo-cons” (which by the way, originally meant a former lefty who has seen the errors in leftist thought and has corrected his/her take on things) aren’t too fond of David Suzuki’s hypocrisy and preaching.
Pete in ‘Sauga says: “I believe that’ shows like these are important, yet I’m not seeing anything on the private networks like that anymore, even though it used to exist many years ago.”
May I suggest you are looking in the wrong place. There are many specialty channels, and more importantly unlimited resources on the net. I recommend the following (all of them are free):
UCBerkeley Events Channel (http://www.youtube.com/user/UCBerkeleyEvents#p/p) (Middle of the road)
TED Ideas Worth Spreading (http://www.ted.com/) (Liberal)
.
FORA.tv – The Smart Network (http://fora.tv/) (Liberal)
CPAC Cable Public Affairs Channel (http://www.cpac.ca/forms/index.asp?dsp=template&act=view3&)template_id=46&lang=e (Middle of the road and much of it is live coverage without talking heads telling us what to think)
ParlVU Event Centre: (http://parlvu.parl.gc.ca/parlvu/) Live coverage of goings-on in parliament
Uncommon Knowledge: (http://tv.nationalreview.com/uncommonknowledge/) One on one discussions featuring host Peter Robinson and his guests. Tends toward conservatism.
Kitman TV – Politically Incorrect Documentaries Online: (http://kitmantv.blogspot.com/) Unabashedly right wing
Pete in ‘Sauga says: “…since the private networks currently have made it quite clear that they only want to provide junk food for the mind, as that is sadly what seems to pull in more “eyeballs” from undiscerning viewers.”
I tend to agree, but would include much of what CBC produces as well. But having said that, geeze, Pete, doesn’t a fella or gal have the right to just sit a veg out after a long hard days work. There is a roll for “junk food for the mind”. For some, it’s a great unwinder, and who are you to make the determination of what’s good for Delbert’s mind, or my mind, or anyone else’s? Again with the arrogance and condescension! Shame on you.
Oh, and I should also point out that there are tons of good documentary length videos on YouTube, Liveleak, Eyeblast, Vimeo and so on. All of them are free.
And tons of “intelligent” talk radio from all spots along the political spectrum.
Delbert, why don’t you peddle your Trotskyist tripe on Mother Jones, or perhaps more apropos to your writing level, Highlights for Children? You are the worst type of Communist, one who tries to present himself as a free-marketer but is as pink-blooded as Blair or Deng Xiaoping. But perhaps you can’t even see what you really are, friend.
To clarify: ” But more than questions of being “left” or “right”, I prefer to see things in terms of intelligence and common good.”
When I said that, I was speaking of what I feel is more important than adhering to an extreme ideology, either left or right, that blinds one to anything that may be of some value from the other side. I believe that the CBC does try to show both points of view, as I’ve certainly seen many instances of commentators and even show hosts agreeing with the Harper Conservatives when they do something for the common good. The problem is, Harper then goes and squanders that good will when he gives in to his natural temptation to bully and steamroll his way over the opposition, the press, and anyone who questions his actions. It was not a comment on Delbert’s intelligence, so your assumption is a knee jerk reaction. What I do resent about Delbert, though, is his trying to get Paul to state for the record his political affiliation. That’s a moot point and frankly none of Delbert’s business. Actually, considering how some of you conservatives love to link liberals automatically to communism, it really smacks of McCarthyism.
The CBC is indeed caught between a rock and a hard place these days. If they continue to go more and more commercial with programs indistinguishable from those found on the private networks, then they are not really justifying their existence as a public broadcaster that offers at least some substance in what they do. Yet, if they do try to set the bar higher, cutting out dumb fare like reality shows and fluff news pieces, then they get labeled as “elitist” and risk losing precious ratings points, so they’re damned if they don’t and damned if they do! To be fair, I can live with a balance, so long as they do their best to create some programming that appeals more to the intelligent and curious minds among their audience. Is that really asking too much?
Louise says: “Please reserve you stereotyping for others, or perhaps, quit the habit altogether. It doesn’t help the Liberal cause, and that, by the way, is one of the reasons I cannot vote Liberal today. It is a party of bankrupt stereotypes and not much more.”
Wow, this sentence actually contradicts itself! You accuse me of stereotyping others, yet you refer to the Liberals as “a party of bankrupt stereotypes and not much more.” ????!!!!!
Lumping all members into that “stereotype”, are we Louise? No attempt to see them as a group of individuals capable of independent thoughts and ideas aside from some basic agreements within the party framework? Louise, you and all of your cohorts on here are so guilty of a double standard whenever you accuse others of something that that all of you do as well. Get off your high horse – you’re just as quick to stereotype and generalize as your opponents in order to make an argument. Fact is, I don’t believe that one can form an argument without generalizing to some extent, so I will continue to do so despite your silly sermonizing. Deal with it.
I still would like to know why the CBC which is so in the tank for the LIberals reported so relentlessly on the sponsorship scandal — the very thing that soured enough Canadians on the LIbs that it brought the Cons to power.
Like Pete, I have voted many ways across the political spectrum through the years. I have also publicly, in conversation and email and what have you, praised Harper when I felt he made tough but good decisions — such as the one he had to make on Income Trusts.
But since I’ve been politically aware and active, the value of judging issues by the issues and building your political consciousness has gone a little more by the wayside. It’s hard to come up with how you feel on an issue based on weighing the facts, and searching your soul to come up with what’s right. It’s much easier to hew to a set of talking points.
On this score, the “modern” (quotes mine, because I don’t actually think there’s much modern about it) conservative movement is laudably more disciplined than the progressive/liberal side. We’ve seen the talking points in this thread. It doesn’t matter what the evidence says, the brief from the top is that the CBC is biased, and so that’s what’s said. Ignore any facts that don’t support the talking points. Resort to ad hominem when necessary. Lather. Rinse. Repeat.
The difference between Louise and Delbert and myself, Paul, and I suspect, Pete in ‘sauga as well — is that I wager that if I had to I could argue for the former on much of the issues. I know what you guys will say before you say it because it’s pre-digested and pre-processed talking points. You could not do the same for me, because the truth is that I am not reliably left or right on all issues. (although I suspect I probably would be left of both of you, but that’s only because, as I wrote before, the modern Cons have moved their vision of “the centre” so far to the right.)
Left/Right dichotomies and the refusal to view issues through any but these prisms is antithetical to the very nature of representative democracy. And as I think someone pointed out before, is the kind of groupthink usually more associated with totalitarianism or Maoism than either the Conservative or Liberal tradition in Canada or the Republican and Democratic traditions in the United States.
Finally: one crucial difference between the two camps: Conservatives have been losing a remarkable number of thinkers lately from being not orthodox enough. The purges of your intellectual lights proves that the movement you so vehemently defend is cloistered, and airless. And demography will take care of the rest.
I don’t care about pot smoking or gays marrying, or even Conservatives who want to blather on the CBC. The difference is, I’ll defend the right to all three. And I’ll do it without resorting to hectoring and personal attacks. I don’t know a thing about either Louise and Delbert. I can disagree with their ideas without castigating their personalities.
As for the line about sermonizing, Louise, well, let’s just leave it at that wonderful bible verse about sowing what you reap. Toodles!
Pete in ‘Sauga says: “Actually, considering how some of you conservatives love to link liberals automatically to communism, it really smacks of McCarth”
LOL! And then we have FDS accusing Delbert of being a “Trotskyist”.
But, as Paul says, 10% is an indication of success and war is peace.
————————————–
Pete in ‘Sauga says: “To be fair, I can live with a balance, so long as they do their best to create some programming that appeals more to the intelligent and curious minds among their audience. Is that really asking too much?”
No, it’s not too much to ask. Maybe that’s where their niche should be. But, unless you fashion yourself Le Dauphin, none of this gives you or anyone else the right to take money from me to satisfy your tastes, intellectual or otherwise. You need to pay your own way.
Oh, and I stand by my characterization of the Liberal Party. They haven’t had a vision for this country since Trudeau, and that vision has just about run its course.
S#@T Denis McGrath says …
“You want the fight? Bring it. You’re gonna lose. Because the institution of the CBC is worth preserving, and for all its faults is a thousand times better than anything you’d see it replaced with.”
Go that? That’s how good the CBC is. It’s that good.
It’s a thousand times better than ANYTHING it could be replaced with.
You understand?
No matter what replaced the CBC, the CBC of today is a thousand times better already.
No matter what you replaced it with.
A thousand times better.
Today’s CBC.
It’s better than anything else.
Simply, there’s nothing better than the CBC, and there never will be.
And that’s not being rabid or anything. That’s Denis’ view.
A thousand times better than anything that would replace it.
“There’s nothing to talk about anymore.”
He actually said that.
“I don’t care about pot smoking or gays marrying, or even Conservatives who want to blather on the CBC. The difference is, I’ll defend the right to all three. And I’ll do it without resorting to hectoring and personal attacks. I don’t know a thing about either Louise and Delbert. I can disagree with their ideas without castigating their personalities.”
That’s so commendable, in light of what Denis had said earlier …
“Delbert is the type of rabid anti-CBC troll who makes their tiresome bile known at all the usual dittohead sites”
oh. teamakers. i loved you.
even when you got all juvenile.
you still brought the crap to the top — and there really needs
to be some insider critique of the cbc – and their smarmy anti public good ratings chasing bullshit. (ie. george and jian – what embarrassing airheads – they should be mocked. and often)
rip. xo
Blog killer. Already your stature so diminished without reflected Teamakers glory. You had nothing to offer but stalker crazy, and now it’s back to the trash pile with you. Good riddance. Long live CBC.