Richard Stursberg is Leaving the CBC
The boss of the CBC on the English side, Richard Stursberg, a controversial executive just as well know for his brash manner as his many accomplishments - including driving ratings higher across the network and introducing a more commercial approach to the corporation, is leaving.
His departure is effective immediately. The sudden timing of the announcement will likely lead to speculation about the circumstances of his departure.
The news will come as a shock to the entire corporation.
Stursberg was a divisive figure in the corporation. Sometimes derisively labelled ‘King Richard’ he was responsible for locking out CBC staff in 2005, and even got into a confrontation on the picket line. But his successes at the network are undeniable.
He introduced a host of changes during his tenure. He reversed several years of declining ratings at CBC Television, he introduced more reality programming and factual entertainment to the network. He also integrated the radio, television and online newsrooms and he made it a priority to push CBC content on multiple platforms.
An announcement was made on the internal employee web site this afternoon. “When Richard was appointed executive vice-president of CBC Television six years ago, he brought with him a revolution that shook the foundation of the organization and eventually the whole of our English services. He challenged every premise, attacked conventional wisdom, and uprooted whole parts of the internal culture,” the note from the office of the president says.
The president of the CBC, Hubert Lacroix, said Stursberg turned the CBC around.
Kirstine Stewart, who is currently in charge of CBC English Television is taking over Stursberg’s role on an interim basis.
The note also says “We are in the midst of developing a new strategic plan that will guide CBC/Radio-Canada through the next five years. This is the opportune time to bring new leadership to English services and to ensure alignment of the senior team on the future of the public broadcaster.”
What do you think of Stursberg’s departure?
|
Email This Post |
| Executives |
What about Carole MacNeil, his wife?
And the new season of Radio 2 is to be changed too?
I think 6000 more departures would be nice.
As for this dude raising CBC’s ratings, he evidently hadn’t done so good a job.
Yowza. Even fellow socialists bash the CBC:
“The spokesperson for Friends of Canadian Broadcasting blames erosion of quality broadcasting by the CBC on “inexperienced management” and the continuing practice of the prime minister rather than the board of directors in appointing the president of the corporation.
“The current president and CEO of the CBC, Hubert Lacroix, lacks prior experience in radio or television production, scheduling and marketing. So does Richard Stursberg, who runs CBC’s English services,” Ian Morrison said while speaking Wednesday in Stratford. “Having people in charge who lack appropriate experience would be unthinkable in private sector broadcasting.”
http://www.stratfordbeaconherald.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=2700132
This hippie is mostly right, except his take that the last 3 PMs have cut funding to public broadcasting: this is not a problem, but a solution.
Please cut funding to the CBC. Today, not next week.
Lemme say something on behalf of the employees at CBC,
Happiest day at CBC
This could have consequences for good or ill…or both, depending on what happens next.
Since I haven’t cared for most of the changes he has initiated at the CBC, can’t say I’m unhappy to see him gone.
can peter sit down now?
[tumbleweeds]
Seriously, no spell check? Hilarious. Period.
I am personally overjoyed to hear that Richard Stursberg has been shown the door. Both he and his former boss, Robert Rabinovitch have done so much damage to CBC over the years by chasing after higher ratings through the dumbing down of the programming on both TV and radio. Ironically, Stursberg was generating so much dumb, populist fare like reality shows in order to appeal to precisely the type of people who never liked CBC and never will, like some of the usual suspects on this forum who consistently badmouth everything CBC does. If Hubert Lacroix really wants to get CBC back on track, he will start listening to the CBC’s longtime audience: those of us who appreciate more intelligent news and entertainment, more arts based programming – in other words, all of the type of programming that the commercial networks are no longer interested in providing. And if he’s really smart, he will also ignore the tirades of the CBC’s detractors on the far right, as there is nothing that the CBC can ever do to satisfy those people, so why even try?
Parting company with Stursberg is a good first step towards recovery, but it will take much more courage and effort to regain the former CBC-TV viewers and especially the former Radio 2 listeners who for the last six years or more have felt forsaken by the CBC management. I will be cautiously optimistic, but I wish CBC all the best in getting back on track.
Former CBC manager Ron Devion’s note to CBC President Hubert Lacroix:
Dear Mr. Lacroix,
We have never met, however, as a person who spent 40 years as a former CBC TV employee in various capacities e.g., Program Director CBLT Toronto, Head of TV Network Sports, Director of TV for CBC B.C., Head of the Host Broadcaster for the 1994 Victoria Commonwealth Games, I wish to applaud your decision to rid the organization of an individual who almost single-handedly destroyed the reputation of Canada’s English Public Broadcaster.
Mr. Stursbergs ill-advised strategic decisions, in both television and radio, during his tenure, has done more to erode the confidence of Canadians, especially those loyal CBC audiences, and current and former staff and contract employees, than any other single individual who has ever held a decision making position at the public broadcaster.
It was obvious to most listeners/viewers/employees past and present, that he did not understand or care about the purpose and importance of a public broadcaster’s role in maintaining a healthy and vibrant Canadian democracy. Chasing ratings is not and never should be the end game of a public broadcaster.
The silence of the politicians and CBC Board speaks volumes. I just hope it is not too late.
Good hunting in your search for a more suitable replacement(s), i.e. one for CBC TV and one for CBC Radio.
Two very distinct services that require separate leadership.
Sincerely yours,
Ron Devion
xxx-xxx xxxxx Drive,
Brentwood Bay, B.C., xxx xxx
xxx-xxx-xxxx
Pete in ‘Sauga: “And if he’s really smart, he will also ignore the tirades of the CBC’s detractors on the far right, as there is nothing that the CBC can ever do to satisfy those people, so why even try?”
======================
I’ll have to keep that one on file. Of course, Pete thinks “CBC’s detractors” should continue to pay for whatever satisfies him. How’s Marie, Pete? Is she busy baking cakes?
On the broader topic, I’m rather surprised CBC would print such a story. Normally, the only time we head from CBC about CBC is when they feel like bragging and boasting about themselves. This one is more like the “dirty laundry in public” variety. Make’s you wonder what’s going on inside Grandmother’s Corpse. Necrophilia?
In agreement with Delbert, Jack, et al., who look forward to a *completely* re-vamped CBCRadio, English Services, particularly Radio2, whose on-air personailities have long over-stepped listeners’ thresholds of tolerance with their insufferable inanities.
Merci beaucoup, M. Lacroix, merci!
So. Would this be an appropriate time to request the song, “Closing Time,” by Leonard Cohen, the Man Himself, on the departure of M. Stursberg, et al., on whatever CBCRadio program has the courage to play it on air?
In answer to “no reason was given for Stursberg’s departure,” do the math! (It ain’t algebra, dear.) Dick’s Expenses October 1 to December 31, 2009: Travel $17,938.33; Entertainment $18,705.85. (Hint: The answer is $36,644.18.)
Source: http://www.cbc.radio-canada.ca/docs/expenses/09-10/stursbergq3.shtml
P.S. It’s always about the money, darlings. It’s always about the money. Period.
We will miss Richards leadership.
I’ll tell you what, Louise. You can have back your share of the CBC budget when I get back my share of what the government has been wasting on Canada’s adventure in Afghanistan. Come to think of it, maybe I should also request back my share of the health care budget being spent to care for people who are in rough shape due to a lifetime of being heavy smokers. You see, that’s just the way the tax system works – not everybody gets to decide exactly how our tax dollars are spent. Frankly, I’m fine with that, as I see it as all being a necessity for living in a civilized society as we are so fortunate to have here in Canada. We all pay into the system to enjoy the benefits of the social safety net, infrastructure, etc. Now that the ratings chasing Richard Stursberg is gone from CBC, I’m hoping that our tax dollars will continue to support a public broadcaster that is now able to get back to what it used to be before the all of the fuzzy, populist thinking took over.
I guess Pete doesnt care about Afghan girls who run the risk of having acid thrown in their faces. “Let them live under oppression,” says Pete.
But I digress: Pete is correct in that Canada’s voting populace will decide how our money is spent. Our Afghan humanitarin mission may end sooner than expected, while the same goes for the unwatched CBC. Canadians are angry at the Bilion $ waste. Canadians are unimpressed with the content. There’s no value with this massive boondoggle. Enjoy it while you can, Pete, because the CBC will soon shrink. It’s inevitable.
Thanks, Delbert, for that link to the Friends of Canadian Broadcasting link. But you left out the most important part of the story:
>>
He [Ian Morrison] pointed out that a 2003 report comparing government funding for the public broadcaster in Canada found only four of 26 Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development countries spent less as a percentage of gross domestic product than Canada on public broadcasting — Portugal, Poland, New Zealand and the U.S.
The study found Canada was spending $1 for every $1,250 as compared with the OECD average of $1 in $714, he said.
Canadians have an erroneous and misleading notion of how much we support public broadcasting, he said.
>>
Just for comparison sake, I’ll note that if the CBC received $1 billion a year as a tax subsidy, divided between 30 million citizens, that would amount to $33.33 per citizen per year. My private sector high speed Internet service costs $56 per *month*. Private sector basic land line phone service is $25 per *month*. Why can’t the chiselers in the private sector run a tight ship like the CBC? $33 per year for my CBC service versus $672 for Internet and $300 for phone. Wow. Which is harder to pay for each year? Do the math.
Jane Still, take another look at that balance sheet. You are adding the grand total to the first subtotal. Not that I care about his expenses. The grand total is $18,705.85.
Pete in ‘Sauga: “You can have back your share of the CBC budget when I get back my share of what the government has been wasting on Canada’s adventure in Afghanistan. Come to think of it, maybe I should also request back my share of the health care budget being spent to care for people who are in rough shape due to a lifetime of being heavy smokers.”
Deal!
I will ask the poster who has the unmitigated gall to call himself “The Truth” not to put words in my mouth. Of course I care about the atrocities going on in Afghanistan. I care about the atrocities going on in numerous other parts of the world too. Unfortunately, we in the civilized world can’t be everywhere at all times to knock sense into every despot and their thuggish followers. Sadly, the only thing that will really make a difference is when our efforts are supported overwhelmingly by the will of the people. After the many years in Afghanistan, it is clear to me that the will is not there. There is no major goal that can be achieved there. For every positive change we try to make, it is being undone soon thereafter by the Taliban and their many supporters, including many corrupt individuals in the Afghan government, military, and police force. To have our troops remain there seems to make as much sense to me as trying to fill up a bucket with water when that bucket has a huge hole at the bottom. I wish it were a different situation where western style democracy could take hold, but it isn’t and it never will be.
Dennis Brown’s quote of Ian Morrison: “Just for comparison sake, I’ll note that if the CBC received $1 billion a year as a tax subsidy, divided between 30 million citizens, that would amount to $33.33 per citizen per year. My private sector high speed Internet service costs $56 per *month*. Private sector basic land line phone service is $25 per *month*. Why can’t the chiselers in the private sector run a tight ship like the CBC? $33 per year for my CBC service versus $672 for Internet and $300 for phone.” Wow. Which is harder to pay for each year? Do the math.
——————————-
In the first statement – “I’ll note that if the CBC received $1 billion a year as a tax subsidy, divided between 30 million citizens, that would amount to $33.33 per citizen per year.” – the analysis is made using individual citizens, regardless of whether or not they live alone or with a group of people, such as would be the case in a household with a dad, mom and two kids. If all four of the people in said household paid the per citizen rate, the cost to the household would be $133.32, not $33.33. If mom or dad is of the stay at home with the kids variety, then the cost to the lone wage earner in that household is $133.32.
Normally either mom or dad, or maybe both, pays the bills. The kids don’t have an income, other than maybe a paper route, or something. So Morrison should not be using the individual citizen as the basis for his math.
Based on the latest census, the number of people who are under 19 (stats Canada’s category 15 to 19) comprise 23% of the population, so he should be using 26 million not 30 million, to reflect the percentage that are not likely paying taxes.
You can adjust the percentage downward a bit by using the 15 to 19 year-old cohort, if you want, but the numbers would still not work in Morrison’s favour, and, besides, the closer you get to the group of Canadians who are 15, the less likely you are to have citizens who actually pay taxes in support of any government service, let alone pay their share of land line fees and cable fees. In some provinces, it’s not even legal for 15 year-olds to work for pay without their parent’s permission. Even many 19 year-olds don’t work for a living. Many are going to post secondary schools of one sort or another.
Then Morrison goes on to compare that figure to ones which can only be expressed as a “per household” unit services – land line phone and high speed Internet. While it’s still less, he fails to account for the value the customer perceives he or she is getting for their money and who gets to make the choice.
As a case in point, I canceled my land line phone earlier this year, opting only for my cellular service. The land line service seemed a bit redundant and unnecessary. I had canceled my cable about four years ago, due to what for me was the feeling that the value of what I was getting was not worth the price, by a long shot.
I’m now an internet freak. There is a vast and growing range of interesting content available via the Internet. I do not need TV, period, let alone CBC.
If Morrison really wants to use individuals rather than households, he should be honest about the above stated facts, and recognize that while a five year-old does not have the wherewithal to pay for cable. He should also recognize that many people at the other end of the age spectrum are not paying for Internet access.
In the first instance, the five year old doesn’t file an income tax statement. In the second, many 84 year-olds, get their money back. If he was honest, the population number he should choose would be closer to 26 not 30 million.
Morrison’s analysis is filled with holes. Perhaps Delbert sees through them, too.
more advertising is what we need. radio can generate millions in revenue….. hey mr.truth canadians are actually impressed, the ratings don’t lie…more ad revenue equals lower government handouts.
To Dennis Brown: 33$ per Canadian Citizen annually is far more than should be spent on the CBC. I’d wager a vast majority of Canadians would much rather have a cheque for 33 bucks. You cite the relatively small cost that Canadians are forced to pay, but a more poignant point is the damage caused by the CBC: the CBC pushes an evil left-wing agenda. It relays its “news” under a politically correct anti-Christian liberal progressive secular cloak of neutrality. Canadians realize this. the CBC thus garners a tiny media market share.
The Truth claims:
‘It relays its “news” under a politically correct anti-Christian liberal progressive secular cloak of neutrality.’
Examples, please?
You can’t give me any examples that the CBC is *not* biased to the political left. But here goes: Find me a pro-McCain peice from Sept 2008 — You won’t because CBC didn’t print any. (But you’ll find a truckload of Obama love stories, from reporters who admittedly love Obama and socialism!) Find me a news story about Catholicism that *deosn’t* spew the politically correct left-wing talking point that Catholicism is evil. Find me an in-depth story about Climategate– Oh, sorry.. wikileaks bashing our Canadians military is MUCH more important. Did the CBC show mohammed cartoons? No, because that would enrage Canada’s NDP & Liberal voters. Show me a story about the Canadians oilsands that *deosn’t* mention the pollution or David Suzuki’s talking points. Show me a CBC story about the negative economic impacts of mass third-world immigration — you won’t find one. Show me a CBC story about the benefits of allowing me to carry a concealed weapon, or the benefits of low taxes, or the unsustainability of ponzi-scheme healthcare. Geez, where does it end? And you wonder why very few Canadians have tuned out?
Good list, Truth. And these “errors of omission” are only the a partial list. There is also the litany of “guilt assumed by association” as well. Stockwell Day = Christian = bad, or dissenting opinion on global warming = “denier” = dangerous nutcase, for two examples.
Look at the platform they gave Marci McDonald, fer not-chris sake.
And look at all the cheerleading they do for the global warming scam.
http://www.cbc.ca/search/cbc?ie=utf8&site=CBC&output=xml_no_dtd&getfields=description&oe=utf8&safe=high&q=global+warming
3810 stories on it, so far.
One story on Christopher Monckton in which he is described as a “denier”.
http://www.cbc.ca/search/cbc?ie=utf8&site=CBC&output=xml_no_dtd&getfields=description&oe=utf8&safe=high&q=Christopher+Monckton
Notice, also that CBC’s search function comes up with ten hits on the keyword Monckton, but all but one are on the city of Moncton, NB. Imagine that. CBC can’t distinquish between Monckton with a “k” and Moncton without the “k”. For this we (including our children) pay $33.00 each.
Pete in ‘Sauga, this is what we cons are upset about with regard to the criminal justice system. It’s not the level of crimes committed in Canada, it’s what our betters have decided to do with those that are incarcerated, especially those who have committed heinous crimes. Got it?
http://www.globaltvbc.com/Police+search+time+high+risk+killer+goes+missing/3377340/story.html
“A little more than a week after he was released in Calgary after serving a sentence for breaching conditions, a two-time killer has gone missing.
Calgary police issued two Canada-wide warrants for Matthew Adrian Boyes, 39, after he went missing for 24 hours.
Boyes, a high-risk offender, was released on July 30 after serving a six-month sentence for breaching conditions of his peace bond.”
Why was he even released in the first place.
I suspect and hope this is why Stockwell Day is building more prisons. We need to warehouse them for life – real life, or better yet, reinstate the death penalty for scum like him and give us tax payers a break.
Jane Still, if you’re going to put up figures that link to a website, better make sure your math is actually correct. Your numbers were all wrong.
http://www.cbc.radio-canada.ca/docs/expenses/09-10/stursbergq3.shtml
BWHAHAHAHAHA! Hitler learns of Stursberg’s departure:
http://vimeo.com/14001641
Here’s a direct quote from Louise, grabbed from her own blog on Aug 7. (“A Ten Ton Elephant…):
“I don’t know the first thing about Stursburg or any of the other top brass at CBC, since I never watch/listen to the thing. I just hope they privatize the whole thing, then I won’t have to pay for it.”
So there you have it. By her own admission, Louise neither watches the CBC nor knows anything about Richard Stursberg. Why then is she even commenting in this particular thread? What the heck is she doing bringing up the criminal justice system and the Conservatives plan to build more prisons? How does that relate to the topic of Richard Stursberg’s departure from CBC? I swear, this woman has nothing in the way of constructive criticism to offer, just a continuing wish to see the downfall of this longstanding Canadian institution so she can dance on its grave. Seriously, why should CBC even attempt to reach out to this type of individual who will never be happy with anything they do. CBC is damned if they don’t and damned if they do, therefore they and their loyal supporters (myself included) should just laugh at her rhetorical ravings. I certainly am.
Oh by the way, Louise. Yes, that Hitler clip you linked to is very funny. In fact, it’s been cleverly subtitled by somebody who is happy to see Stursberg go because of the dumb, commercial direction he was steering the CBC. The prankster is on the side of those of us who want the CBC to be so much better than that. I guess you didn’t get the joke since you never watch CBC and don’t know the first thing about Stursberg.
Stumbled across this blog while googling. Just want to say I don’t know anyone who watches CBC except for Hockey. I guess if my taxes dollars pay for it, then that’s not money well spent.
Well you sure wouldn’t learn anything about Stursburg or management of the CBC by watching the CBC, would you? You’d learn a hell of a lot more reading blog like Small Dead Animals though.
To Pete: I think Louise would actually watch the CBC if they had a “real” news host that tells-it-the-way-it-is. Someone who would show the mohammed cartoons. Someone who would describe French rioters as what they *really* are, not “youths”. Someone who would celebrate the importance of Canada’s oil production in our economy. Someone who would hold First Nations accountable for their self-government actions; not keep rewarding failure. Someone who would detail the failure and waste of the gun registry. Someone who would relay how socialism *causes* despondence, cime, & reliance on a dole-system; rather than lifting people onto their feet. Someone who is *not* a cultural relativist, who actually believes and preaches that, *gasp*, some cultures are superior to others. Someone who reveals it’s insane to wait 3 months for an MRI.
Louise, you would watch *this* CBC program, right? I think this would be the most-watched show on CBC. It’s too bad that we can’t find anything remotely close.
The Truth says:
> You can’t give me any examples that the CBC is *not* biased to the political left.
Okay, I see what the problem here is. You’re so far to the right you don’t know where the centre is. Here’s a primer on what the CBC would look like if it were really a hive of leftists. Dragon’s Den, Venture, and all the business coverage would have to disappear. Lorne Gunter, Andrew Coyne, and Allan Gregg would all have to disappear. And you’d have to replace them with people like Linda McQuaig, Rick Salutin, Naomi Klein and Avi Lewis. Instead of self-interested participants like Rick Hillier and Lewis Mackenzie for military analysts you’d have to have real critics like Gwyn Dyer and Eric Margolis. And instead of having Janis Stein or Brian Stewart commenting on the middle east, you’d have to have Robert Fisk or John Pilger. That would be a left-wing CBC, and in Europe, Asia or Latin America you might well find it. But you won’t find it here.
Now if your real complaint is that the CBC doesn’t function as a right wing echo chamber the way Fox News, the Drudge Report, and the Wall Street Journal editorial pages do, then your complaint is justified. The CBC doesn’t do that either.
Poor Pete. He thinks he’s come up with all the dirt on me.
I guess he forgot that way back on the thread that began with the entry dated July 20, 2010 I said this:
“I rarely listen to CBC radio, I am TV-less, and I only occasionally read CBC web-based stories”
Better luck next time.
Oh ya. And to answer the question about why I’m even commenting on this thread. It’s right there in your quote. I’ll be repeating it every chance I get.
I. DON’T. WANT. TO. PAY. FOR. IT.
Next time you visit my blog do a search using the term “CBC” to see what else I’ve said about the beast.
I stand corrected. I knew that M. Stursberg has been chastized for his high expenses by the media in the past, e.g., more than $84,000 in expenses (approx.) over two years, and when I saw the two categories of expenses, well, I just saw more red than there actually was. I was wrong. Thanks for the correction, Louise and Matt.
I suppose one can explain away the exhorbitant amounts–these travel and entertainments expenses are just for one Quarter. Say he spent approximately the same amount in each of the other three quarters of 2009: 4 x $19,000 = $76,000 expenses for the year! And the media thought $84,000+ expenses over two years was bad! YIKES!–remembering that M. Stursberg had a ‘duty’ to entertain (that’s what the expenses are actually called on the Expense Report!). And I suppose he also felt ‘obligated’ to travel high on the citizens’ dollars, too. But, hey, who knows for sure? We won’t, that’s for sure. The real figures will never be made public now. We can only read the old numbers, and weep.
Nevertheless, I still wonder what the expenses were for the first two Quarters of 2010. Maybe when M. Lacroix looked at them, he had finally had it, and at last threw the book at M. Stursberg, saying, “Go! Lunch with independent writers and tour Vancouver on your own dollar from now on!” I’d like to think this was the case.
It must have been K. (Ken) Golemba, of CBC (see below), whom Richard Stursberg expensed: “Vancouver: Various business meetings and meeting with K. Golemba and tour of Vancouver broadcast centre facilities, 30/12/2009-03/01/2010,” in the amount of $4,107.44 on his Travel Expenses for the Period of October 1 to December 31, 2009.
I wondered if there was some emergency that would have brought M. Stursberg to Vancouver again, especially since both he and M. Golemba would in all likelihood have been at the “Vancouver: Opening of Vancouver Broadcast Centre” earlier in the month: “01-06/12/2009,” and which was expensed by M. Stursberg in the amount of $4,324.84 on the same report, Travel Expenses for the Period of October 1 to December 31, 2009.
Since we can’t possibly know what brought M. Stursberg to Vancouver at the end of December 2009, we can only perhaps just put it down to the extreme conscientiousness of CBC executives and employees, who would avail themselves to engage in “various business meetings” on the last two business working days at the end of the year, and on New Year’s Day itself as well(?).
Regardless, I think that if I had been reviewing these two expense claims, I would have asked some questions. I have a niggling feeling that won’t go away that perhaps M. Lacroix might have queried them as well. And, of course, with M. Stursberg’s sudden departure from CBC, we’ll never know the answers that were given nor have the opportunity to question the man himself. Disappointedly I’m left to wonder what M. Stursberg’s expense report claimed for various meetings, etc., during the 2010 Vancouver Olympics.
~ Jane
P.S. to Louise and Matt: Please feel free to check my figures for accuracy, and raise any related questions you may also have.
+ + + + + +
Ken Golemba has agreed to replace Scott Stewardson [who moves to "his new job as Director of Technological Maintenance for English Services, based in Toronto"] and has returned to the regional management team as our new Senior Manager of Production & Resources for English Services in BC.
Ken, of course, is well known to everyone here as the Project Manager of the Vancouver Redevelopment Project. Previously, with past service at CBC Moose Jaw and Regina, Ken came to BC in 1994 as the Manager of Radio & TV Maintenance and soon moved up to Head of TV Operations and Plant Manager in Vancouver.
Ken and Scott worked together on the transition until Scott’s departure at the end of July. Ken is now working ‘double-duty’ until the building project wraps up in late October. We’re very fortunate to have Ken return to English Services. We know our operations are in excellent hands” (KG, “Stationbreak CBC Radio and Television Notes,” September 1, 2009 http://www.stationbreak.ca/publishing/publish/fall/CBC_RADIO_TELEVISION_NOTES.shtml retrieved August 10, 2010).
The Truth says: [and I reply from the other side of the aisle to provide balance]
To Pete: I think Louise would actually watch the CBC if they had a “real” news host that tells-it-the-way-it-is.
> Someone who would show the mohammed cartoons.
Someone who would not back down from showing the real history of WWII instead of kowtowing to conservative critics. [The Valour and the Horror, the War Museum fiasco - political correctness cuts two ways, doesn't it?]
> Someone who would describe French rioters as what they *really* are, not “youths”.
Someone who describe Canadian conservatives as what they “really” are, not “conservatives”.
> Someone who would celebrate the importance of Canada’s oil production in our economy.
Someone who would celebrate the importance of unions and the necessity for a living wage to end poverty and create demand for the economy.
> Someone who would hold First Nations accountable for their self-government actions; not keep rewarding failure.
Someone who would hold the federal government accountable for its seizure of native lands and failure to settle claims.
> Someone who would detail the failure and waste of the gun registry.
Someone who would compare the gun registry to the motor vehicle registries which cost 15 times more than the gun registry but with which gun owners happily comply.
> Someone who would relay how socialism *causes* despondence, cime, & reliance on a dole-system; rather than lifting people onto their feet.
Someone who would relay how free market downsizing, outsourcing, and debt financed mergers *cause* layoffs, long term unemployment, high levels of personal debt, lack of demand in the economy, with resulting despondence, crime & reliance on a dole.
> Someone who is *not* a cultural relativist, who actually believes and preaches that, *gasp*, some cultures are superior to others.
Someone who recognizes that the “culture” generated by the CBC’s commercial rivals (or Small Dead Animals) *isn’t* that “superior” culture.
> Someone who reveals it’s insane to wait 3 months for an MRI.
Someone who reveals Paul Martin’s $100 billion dollar tax cut in 2000
helped increase those waiting times.
Yes, I too would like to see a news service that tells it like it is. Until then, I’ll have to settle for the CBC.
Louise says:
> One story on Christopher Monckton in which he is described as a “denier”.
Gee, the CBC is being polite and too politically correct. A writer from a CanWest paper The Province, after attending a Monckton lecture described Monckton’s assertions as the product of “whacked-out, far-right ideology, combined with an ego the size of the Antarctic ice sheet.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Monckton,_3rd_Viscount_Monckton_of_Brenchley#Climate_change
Truth, that’s a pretty decent list of “conspicuous by their absence” issues and I would add that it’s not just their inclusion that would make CBC a better investment, but the amount of time devoted to such issues. A passing reference on an obscure part of their website won’t do the trick.
But whether that would bring me back to CBC is questionable. Call it too little too late, perhaps, but all of that stuff and more is dealt with extensively all over the net, especially on blogs.
IMHO, the only future for television is to find it’s niche, whatever that may be. I know one thing for sure, whatever that niche may be, deciding for us what it is we should know is no it. Maybe CBCs niche is acting as a propaganda machine for the Canadian left. They seem to be good at that. All power to them, but leave the taxpayer out of it, please.