Stursberg Defends CBC Journalism in Wake of Sun TV News Launch
Richard Stursberg the president of English programming at the CBC, hit back at critics who have been accusing the network of anti-conservative bias.
In a article in yesterday’s National Post, Stursberg said
Maybe a few observations about “bias” are in order, from an organization that has been accused of bias from most points of the political compass for much of its nearly 75-year history.
Here’s the thing. Rabid partisans — of whatever view — will never agree with the CBC’s coverage of their areas of interest, unless we provide unqualified and uncritical support for their opinions. Nothing else will do. Everything else looks like “bias.”
Our news is never — and can never be — usefully addressed to those whose minds are already made up.
The CBC has been facing complaints of bias for weeks prior to the launch of Sun TV News, a new conservative-slanted all-news channel.
Kory Teneycke, a former communications director in Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s office is behind the new venture. During the launch event last Tuesday he said CBC News is boring:
Canadian TV news today is narrow, it’s complacent and it’s politically correct. It’s bland and boring. Our aim is not to bore people to death, we’ll leave that to the CBC.
|
Email This Post |
| Executives, News & Journalism |
He had no choice but to respond – “you gonna sit there and take that?” – after Quebecor called out the CBC directly.
But it’ll take more than words and and patting oneself on the back, to restore the stature of the CBC News.
“Smug and complacent” are very appropriate words to describe the current state of most of the CBC’s effort.
Both passion and nerve have left the building.
But perhaps George will know what to do, besides making speeches in a partnered newspaper that no one cares about any more.
After all, CBC believes him to be “one of the most respected journalists in the country”.
That says it all, about CBC’s integrity.
A quote from Kory Teneycke:
“Our competitors and our critics will throw all kinds of stones to try to label us, to try to have Canadians dismiss this. I just dismiss that as our competitors taking a shot,” he said, adding anyone wondering what the network will be like should “pick up the Sun newspaper.”
So I gather then that this new TV news service will be 20% news / 80% ads?
“Our news is never — and can never be — usefully addressed to those whose minds are already made up.”
Does Don Newman speak for the CBC also? He’s sounding more and more like those he’s protesting against, without ever seeing one program yet. That could be the CBC’s crack investigative insight bit it’s more likely panic and fear at suddenly having competition. Regarding FOX, Newman says: “The parts that aren’t wrong are, in some ways, just as dangerous, since they tend to make people comfortable in their prejudices.” Sounds distinctly like a man who already has his mind made up.
I’ve had my share of criticisms for the ceeb over the years, but, I’ll even take a smiling Colleen Jones over anything this ‘Star’ can promise.
Long live the CBC.
The CBC is boring, overly politically correct, and definitely left wing in its news coverage. But that doesnt matter: government should not be in the media business, be it Kim Jong ill or Liberal Party-supporting civil servants in Canada. Try and justify the CBC’s non bias; see if I care. But I *do* care about the Billion dollars you waste while garnering less than a 3% market share.
HNIC & Jeapardy are your biggest cash cows. Canadians are phoning their MPs: your day of reckoning will come.
Haven’t the anarchists burned down your building yet?
Please?
Following the link to Stursburg’s article we see he writes this: “Critics countered that Sun TV would be nothing more than a Conservative propaganda machine overseen by a Conservative Prime Minister’s former director of communications.”
Yet (and I’d gladly take my words back, if someone can prove me wrong), it seems to me that CBC can neither write nor voice the words “Kory Teneycke” without immediately following it with “a former communications director in Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s office”.
It’s as if that connection is one of the most critical factors in this whole story and is a reason to revile and dismiss this cocky and rebellious upstart who dares to challenge CBC’s hegemony. How dare the conservative side claim the right have their own voice!!! Oh the horrors!! Yet, in the same breath, the CBC claims to be unbiased. Why is that? Was there a similar circling of the wagons when CTV was launched? Or Global?
It seems to me that every breath you take, every word you write on this issue reveals your fear that you’ve been caught red handed. Yet the only strategy you have is to cast some murky aspersions about the new network’s Conservative Party connections, implying that that is somehow not fair to you and shouldn’t be allowed.
Even if you were to attempt reforms now, it’s too little, too late because most of us were turned off years ago and will not ever go back. We just want our money back. Let your supporters pay your tab and you can be as biased as you want and not have to be constantly defending yourself. Just think of the energy boost that would give you, to have the conservative albatross off your backs and be able to finally come out of the closet.
Perhaps your “deer caught in the headlights” reaction stems from the realization that you could not survive solely on revenue raised by taxing or otherwise tapping those who support your slant.
Hint: If you must persist in claiming black is white, get someone other than CBC insiders or supporters of the Liberal/NDP parties to come to your defense and demonstrate your neutrality and your arguments will be much more believable. Richard Stursberg, the president of English programming, is an insider. You need to do more than just claim you’re not biased. You need to be SEEN as not biased. Just thought I’d point that out, since the implications seem to have escaped you.
A few more comments on Stursberg’s NP article.
1. Stursberg says: “For the record? We would be pleased to have a new competitor in the news marketplace.”
So Don Newman got a comeuppance, then?
2. Stursberg says: “In the meantime, we’ll continue to offer straightforward, authoritative, trustworthy, transparent and accountable news, the way we’ve always done, the way Canadians expect and demand of us as a public broadcaster.”
But we’ll ignore really important news that doesn’t fit our narrative, like Climategate and the whole and rapidly growing “skeptics” side of the AGW issue.
And besides, who are these “Canadians” who “expect and demand” “straightforward, authoritative, trustworthy, transparent and accountable news, the way we’ve always done”? Why don’t you publish externally produced “audience share” data? Are you afraid of what it would show?
3. Stursberg says: “Rabid partisans — of whatever view — will never agree with the CBC’s coverage of their areas of interest, unless we provide unqualified and uncritical support for their opinions. Nothing else will do….”
See #2 above. No coverage is also a form of bias, as is coverage ad nauseam. On the AGW file, CBC provides unqualified and uncritical support to the warmist side. You’ve even got a program host who is on record saying people who disagree with his slant ought to be put in jail. Why is he still working for you? Has he received his reprimand?
I can tell you one thing. Reading through the comments following your webpage news articles, it seems those of a rabid left-wing persuasion out number middle of the road or right of centre commenters by an extremely wide margin. You will also note that on Cross Country Checkup, a substantial majority of callers speak from the left side of the aisle. Why is that? Does that not reflect who your audience is and does that, in turn, not reflect your bias?
4. Stursberg says: “Those who accuse CBC News of being “anti-government” (a commonplace from political partisans regardless of which government happens to be in power) might be surprised to learn that governments (and government spokespeople) tend to get more coverage on CBC than the opposition does. Counterintuitive perhaps,…”
ROTFLMAO!! “More coverage” is not the issue. The content of that coverage is the issue. That, and what you choose to not cover.
And what is this fixation with political parties and which one or the other is in power in Ottawa. That’s only a tiny little slice of where the bias shows up.
5. Stursburg says: “In the news environment of the future, as in the past and present, the winners are going to be those who earn and retain the trust and respect of their audiences.”
Sorry to have to point it out, but you’ve already lost the trust and respect of a large swatch of the Canadian public. It’s amazing you don’t do market share research, or if you do, you don’t publish it. After all, a publicly funded organization should report on it’s successes and failures to it’s shareholders (ie. tax payers). Let’s see some of that please.
“But I *do* care about the Billion dollars you waste while garnering less than a 3% market share.”
Care to show where that 3% market share stat came from.
Last time I checked more Canadians were watching CBC television than Global.
Observer said: “”Last time I checked more Canadians were watching CBC television than Global.”"
That’s lovely, but you’re wrong. You think this anti-CBC rhetoric is without fact?? Here are viewership stats from the past year:
http://bbm.ca/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=108&Itemid=87
Notice how CTV & Global dominate, and CBC rarely makes the list? (Oh, except for HNIC & Jeaopardy)
Contact them for historical data; they’ll gladly give it to you:
http://bbm.ca/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=30&Itemid=38
To summarize, the CBC is dismally unwatched. Care to share where *your* stats come from?
I think you also need to take another look at those BBM charts, Nancy, to see what’s truly going on. Just looking through a few random weeks tells me that, yes, while CTV and Global may dominate the ratings as you say, they are doing so almost exclusively through American programming, the one notable exception being CTV national news. Is this what you believe that CBC should be airing as well in order to compete in your beloved free market?
Whether you agree or not, CBC’s mandate is to provide Canadian generated programming. It’s a much more expensive venture and harder to accomplish than simply purchasing American shows off the rack, but I guess you believe that all Canadian broadcasters should throw in the towel and just air populist fare produced south of the border instead of telling our own stories and keeping Canadian producers, crews and casts employed. Oh, and one more thing: Please learn how to correctly spell “Jeopardy”, as you’ve bungled it twice already. Just a hint : It doesn’t rhyme with “Tea Party”.
It’s telling that the recent comments section on the right side no longer shows the recent comments.
Bill, there’s no conspiracy there. It’s a technical issue from a software upgrade that I’m trying to resolve.
Pete in ‘Sauga says: ” Whether you agree or not, CBC’s mandate is to provide Canadian generated programming. It’s a much more expensive venture and harder to accomplish than simply purchasing American shows off the rack, but I guess you believe that all Canadian broadcasters should throw in the towel and just air populist fare produced south of the border instead of telling our own stories and keeping Canadian producers, crews and casts employed.”
Blah blah blah. Are you sure CBC’s mandate is not to “force Canadian taxpayers to pay for unwatched crap.” ?? After all, this is what CBC is presently doing.
Why doesn;’t the CBC produce something *good* (and watched), like other private Canadian production companies? Perhaps it’s because the CBC’s morale, quality, viewership, creativity, public opinion, etc ALL DOWN DOWN DOWN. Canadians want to employ Canadians: we aren;t anti-Canadian content; we’re anti-’cbc crap’.
Nancy, I would ask you to list examples of what you consider to be CBC “crap” and also some examples of what you consider to be “good (and watched) shows from the private Canadian networks. Seriously, I’m curious. I suspect what you probably like are all the cheaply produced reality shows, most of which are just knock-offs or Canadian versions of American and British shows. Anyway, start your list – I’m waiting.
Interesting reading in today’s Ottawa Sun:
”
Ryerson University professors Marsha Barber and Ann Rauhala explored the demographic and political leanings of Canada’s television news directors. The results of their survey were published in 2005 in the Canadian Journal of Communication. The researchers found the news directors, the people “with the most direct responsibility for programming the news on any given day,” were more politically and socially liberal than the rest of the Canadian population.
Broken down by network, those working for the CBC were the most left-leaning.”
http://www.ottawasun.com/comment/columnists/2010/06/28/14551126.html
Pete in ‘Sauga says: “Whether you agree or not, CBC’s mandate is to provide Canadian generated programming.”
Good grief! The fact that nobody watches it should tell you that Canadians don’t give a “you know what” about Canadian content. This is a policy introduced by Liberal governments ages ago and it just doesn’t reflect what Canadians want done with their money. It didn’t then, either. You cannot force people to watch something or, even more to the point, to like what they watch, even if you could force them.
It amounts to the government holding a gun to our heads on behalf of a small group of arts and techi people who feel their work is sooooo important, and can’t stand the fact that the rest of us don’t share your opinion.
Face it. If you have to extort Canadians to pay for crap, as Nancy so accurately calls it, and Canadians don’t watch it anyway, why on earth do you think we should keep paying for it. This small elitist group is not God’s gift to Canada, despite what they may think of themselves. We don’t owe them a living. Life sucks. Mandates can change. CBC’s is long overdue for one. Get over it.
“Canadian generated programming” is a wonderful idea. The problem is the manner in which it is created, namely the little-watched CBC. (Government businesses seldom deliver good results) Rather than pour $1 Billion + into a partisan Liberal venture, most Canadian taxpayers (aside from g8 & g20 protesters) will be happy when the *private* sector produces “watched” “Canadian” content of which more Canadians can be proud of.
You are losing this battle, Pete: CBC’s funding is slowly being slashed from year to year. Inevitably CBC will deliver only profitable content: HNIC. The rest will be abandoned, as no Canadian production company would purchase these unwatched CBC boondoggles. There’s quality ‘watched’ Canadian content just itching to be made, with no help from the CBC’s “we-get-paid-anyways, why-try?” work ethic.
And still you can’t actually list any specific shows that you consider to be “crap”. You’re the one losing the battle, Nancy, as every post you type only reveals you (and your crony, Louise) to be the closeminded extreme rightwingers that CBC should not even be trying to satisfy since, like Stursberg says, “Our news is never — and can never be — usefully addressed to those whose minds are already made up.” Whether it be CBC news or primetime entertainment, it is obvious that you righties will bash it regardless. In this way, you are no different from U.S. Republicans and the “Tea Party” bunch.
For the record, I’m no fan of Stursberg, either, as I feel he has damaged CBC TV, Newsworld, and CBC 2 by pandering too much to the populist mentality. I say get the CBC back to being MORE elitist, not less! Raise the bar higher and create shows of lasting value and substance. Perhaps then, eventually the Canadian viewing public will start using their brains again, instead of vegging out to idiotic reality shows like what now sadly dominates on American TV.
By the way, Louise, I see from your profile that you work as an accountant. What would you say if I suggested that all Canadians should only give their business to American accountants, as Canadian accountants have no clue as to what they’re doing? Sounds pretty silly, doesn’t it? Yet this is exactly how silly you sound when you suggest that “Canadians don’t give a “you know what” about Canadian content.” There are many excellent producers of Canadian television, more on CBC than on the private networks, simply because Global and CTV would rather buy U.S. shows off the rack than invest in their own country’s talent.
I wonder what CSIS chief Richard Fadden would say about the CBC brave new Journalism program? I suspect the answer is directly related to who the CBC is bushwhacking.
About that pesky last messages thing…. It used to show some of the message. Now it just shows the poster & date.
Pete Says: <<<>>
I find it amusing how you think that my listing CBC’s unwatched garbage will prove something, but here goes: Shall I list dismally unwatched CBC garbage, such as those shows that 99.3% of Canadians have never watched? Or shall I list the most-watched cbc programs, which garner a meagre 6% market share? Please let me know.
Thanks also for the ‘tea party’ attacks. 9 out of 10 people who like/listen/watch/work for the CBC are left-wingers. Case closed.
Your accountant analogy is fascinating, Pete. Really wonderful stuff. But you made an error: it’s not “Canadian accountants” that deliver pitiful results, it’s “CBC accountants”.
Let me help you out there, Nancy. Do you consider such shows as “The Fifth Estate” or “The Nature of Things” to be, in your opinion, “crap”? Seriously, I ‘d like to know, as you seem unable to actually name something specific. Just labeling everything the CBC produces as “crap” hardly seems fair to me. As for these Canadian shows that you claim to be so superior on the private networks, what are they? “Entertainment Tonight Canada” or such other cheap, American knock offs? Your failure to be able to name anything specific speaks volumes about you.
“There’s quality ‘watched’ Canadian content just itching to be made, with no help from the CBC’s “we-get-paid-anyways, why-try?” work ethic.”
How can such content be “watched” if it hasn’t been made? And if the so-called free market works so well, why hasn’t this material been produced and broadcast by CTV and Global?
I’m fascinated by the hatred evinced by those who object in principle to public broadcasting and who apparently wish to turn everything of importance into a commodity, including culture. What a narrow and impoverished view of the world.
“Broken down by network, those working for the CBC were the most left-leaning.”
http://www.ottawasun.com/comment/columnists/2010/06/28/14551126.html
Thank you for that crucial information, Senator McCarthy. Let the purges begin.
Yours, Paul, has got to be the most miserable job at the CBC – having to trumpet whatever Richard Stursberg says.
Not so much dog-piling going on unopposed this time, I see.
Good.
David Suzuki is a radical left-wing socialist. The 5th Estate? Are you even trying? Ask people at work (provided you don’t work at the CBC) what programs exemplify Canadian content: I guarantee you won’t hear either of these.
“Thank you for that crucial information, Senator McCarthy. Let the purges begin.”
Yes, the purges most definitely WILL begin. Canadians are phoning their MPs. We don;t want to pay $1 billion yearly for CBC’s irrelevance any more.
“I’m fascinated by the hatred evinced by those who object in principle to public broadcasting and who apparently wish to turn everything of importance into a commodity, including culture.”
You Still don’t get it, do you?! Your CBC does not come close to describing *MY* and *MOST* Canadians’ culture, of which I exemplify the epitome!! Your CBC DOES NOT SPEAK FOR ME!! I DON”T WANT TO PAY FOR ITS PROLIFERATION OF LEFT-WING MULTI-CULTI POLITICALLY CORRECT NON-STORY IRRELEVANT NONSENSE!!!
I am a Canadian, and my Canada will not take away my guns! My Canada will keep my taxes low! My Canada does NOT employ millions of overpaid, over-pensioned civil servant paper pushers who contribute little to society! My Canada allows me say the truth, even if it hurts your feelings! My Canada empowers people to be self-sufficient, as opposed to reliant on government! My Canada does not proliferate and encourage broken homes and broken familes! My Canada does not regulate working people to the point of complete mercy at the feet of government! My Canada sends hippie unemployed pierced protesters to JAIL!!! You’ve made me angry, and now your irrelevant CBC is going DOWN!!
Better be careful with your guns, Nancy, as it looks like you just shot yourself in the foot. Anyway, I’m sure you’ll enjoy your “Fox News North” if and when it starts up. I think I’ll stick with my Commie-Pinko CBC News, though, thanks just the same.
It can’t happen soon enough.
The only problem will be that the CBC will still be out there, using taxpayers money to compete against private industry. They should stick to basic news and weather, not entertainment, drama or their usual mutual congratulatory programming.
Fair enough, Pete. You keep your CBC, and I’ll watch whatever I want. The difference is, I won’t be paying for yours much longer — soon, you’ll be paying for it yourself.
“Your CBC does not come close to describing *MY* and *MOST* Canadians’ culture, of which I exemplify the epitome!! Your CBC DOES NOT SPEAK FOR ME!! I DON”T WANT TO PAY FOR ITS PROLIFERATION OF LEFT-WING MULTI-CULTI POLITICALLY CORRECT NON-STORY IRRELEVANT NONSENSE!!!”
How does one even begin to respond to such puerile ravings? The degree of self-absorption is staggering. So Canadian society must revolve around your personal likes and immediate interests, and those of people like you? By that logic, childless couples shouldn’t be forced to pay school taxes. And those who never take the bus shouldn’t have to pay for public transit. As for museums, art galleries, symphony orchestras, and the like, are we to believe that only a Bolshevist state would compel its citizens to support such minority tastes? Of course, that just happens to include every civilized country in the world.
Those of us satisfied with CBC as is are already paying for it with our own taxes. Which really seems to be as much what you object to as to your own tax contributions, if I’ve understood this argument against the organization correctly.
“How does one even begin to respond to such puerile ravings? The degree of self-absorption is staggering. So Canadian society must revolve around your personal likes and immediate interests, and those of people like you?”
Nope. But you would expect the CBC to at least make an effort to attract the 94% of Canadians who DON’T watch it. Perhaps sub-par leftwing programming is the reason?
“As for museums, art galleries, symphony orchestras, and the like, are we to believe that only a Bolshevist state would compel its citizens to support such minority tastes?”
The CBC’s unwatched drivel should not be grouped in with the above mentioned legitimate ‘tastes’.
I repeat: we’re not anti-Canadian content, we’re anti-CBC drivel.
“Those of us satisfied with CBC as is are already paying for it with our own taxes.”
That’s lovely. Since the CBC garners a 6% market share, perhaps its costs should be divided up among the 6% of Canadians who actually watch it.
Give me my tax dollars back please.
There needs to be a direct link between the funding and the viewers, or we cut it back to a very basic program that doesn’t compete with private competition.
Before any of that, the CBC must be audited to see where the money is going.
“The CBC’s unwatched drivel should not be grouped in with the above mentioned legitimate ‘tastes’.” [museums, art galleries, and classical music.]
So you happen to approve of classical music–a minority musical genre, live performances of which rely heavily on public funding. That’s good to know. But aren’t you contradicting yourself since you repeatedly invoke audience figures as the only valid yardstick of artistic merit? E.g., a 2005 study showed that no more than 10% of Canadians over the age of 15 attended a classical concert that year. By your head-counting logic the remaining 90% of the population is surely entitled to a full refund of their pro-rata contribution to such elitist music.
Or maybe you think that your hard-earned tax dollars should only fund concerts featuring the music of composers you personally approve of. E.g., money for performances of Tchaicovsky symphonies but not for those by Mahler.
“I repeat: we’re not anti-Canadian content, we’re anti-CBC drivel.”
You continue to smear all of the work appearing on the CBC by Canadian artists while claiming at the same time to support Canadian content. How does killing the CBC promote quality Canadian programming? I repeat my earlier question: if Canadian artists have ready access private broadcasters, why do CTV and Global show so little Canadian content?
“Since the CBC garners a 6% market share, perhaps its costs should be divided up among the 6% of Canadians who actually watch it. Give me my tax dollars back please.”
Why stop at the CBC? Why not demand a refund for every public service that doesn’t benefit you personally? Your comments are the very definition of unenlightened self-interest.
Illicit generalization. Classical music doesn’t cost a billion dollars a year or espouse a political agenda without even asking an opinion.
“if Canadian artists have ready access private broadcasters, why do CTV and Global show so little Canadian content?”
You mean: why do CTV & Global individually attract more than twice as many viewers as CBC? You’re asking the wrong question: a better question would be: why, after billions of dollars to promote Canadian content via the CBC, does this said Canadian content remain dismally unwatched? I’m not here to answer that question. I’m here to address the CBC’s non-journalism, money wasting, meagre market share, political partisanship, and anti-Christian left-wing bias.
“Why stop at the CBC? Why not demand a refund for every public service that doesn’t benefit you personally? Your comments are the very definition of unenlightened self-interest.”
Because many public services are actually useful. (Thanks for the ad hominem attack, btw)
Anyway, I’m finished. We’re at an impasse. Long story short: you are upset that CBC will no longer be able to produce low quality left-wing programming, since its funding will soon be cut. I on the other hand am ecstatic with this. Goodbye.
Stephen said: Why stop at the CBC? Why not demand a refund for every public service that doesn’t benefit you personally? Your comments are the very definition of unenlightened self-interest.
Because we need surgeries, hip replacements, disaster relief, highways, and soldiers. There are priorities. Stephen is the one who’s motivated by self-interest.
Pete in ‘Sauga says: “By the way, Louise, I see from your profile that you work as an accountant”
#1 Thanks for visiting my blog.
#2 Don’t believe everything you read. I deliberately left that there so as to leave no clues about who I really am. It worked!!
So much anti-Americanism, Paul in ‘Sauga. CBC will be proud of their accomplishments!
Paul in ‘Sauga: Perhaps then, eventually the Canadian viewing public will start using their brains again, instead of vegging out to idiotic reality shows like what now sadly dominates on American TV.
====================
Those of us who are using our brains have put their TVs in storage and canceled their cable subscriptions. TV is crap wherever it’s produced. Pity that Canadians have to pay for it, whether they have an idiot box or not.
The assumptions you make. Tsk. Tsk. Brain dead!
Stephen: “…if Canadian artists have ready access private broadcasters, why do CTV and Global show so little Canadian content? ”
================================
Duh! Because it’s just like all TV programming. Dull and boring at best and aggravating at worst. But at least CTV and Global are in a position where their audience share directly affects their bottom line. If they can’t capture the viewers attention, it hurts their ratings, and that means less revenue. They have to shape up of sink.
With CBC, they have no natural feedback loop that tells them they need to shape up. Privatize the damned thing and let it sink or swim. My hunch is, it will sink, just like most of the American networks. Dinosaurs are heavy.
Stephen, the majority of funding for museums, art galleries, and classical music come from local sources. Grants from federal agencies such as the Canadian Heritage do not fund such agencies in totality, neither the buildings themselves nor the programs and events delivered by the organizations, such as the symphony orchestras or local theatre groups that use such spaces. They provide funding on an case by case basis and the recipient must apply for and justify their case for said funding. It’s a model to be emulated as it proves there is local community support for the programs they fund.
Stephen: How can such content be “watched” if it hasn’t been made? And if the so-called free market works so well, why hasn’t this material been produced and broadcast by CTV and Global?
================
Duh!! again. Because the state funded broadcaster has an unfair advantage. And besides, CTV does produce their own programs and they aren’t much better than CBC fare. It’s all crap.
Except for Corner Gas, Louise! That’s one good show that’s actually made in Canada, not far from my home I might add!
But yeah, I don’t know anybody who likes CBC. If that channel got canceled, I don’t think anybody would give a hoot.
How can Richard Stursberg credibly defend the value of CBC TV News to Canadian taxpayers when it’s running a distant third in the ratings?
“Since the fall (of 2009), (CTV’s) Lloyd Robertson has averaged about 1.3 million viewers a night, while Global National’s Kevin Newman, who recently announced he will step down in August, drew just over 1 million viewers. CBC’s The National, hosted by Peter Mansbridge, averaged roughly 685,000 viewers a night.”
True, Rob.
Little Mosque on the Prairie is filmed (part of it, anyway) in my hometown of Indian Head. The locals play extras in it. Butn endless collection of stereotyped cliches. I can see why no one watches it.
…But it’s nothing but an….
Meanwhile, Ignatieff’s bus is stuck by the side of the road and there’s no mention of that on the CBC. These CBC hacks can spin all they want but what they do is much louder.
Actually Bill, I saw that story on the National last night. It was prominently featured.
Hey Paul; you actually watch the National?? Even my grandma refuses to watch it because of its no-news drivel and non-reporting!
When I bump into someone at the bar who claims to respect the National as a credible news source, without fail they next disclose their admiration of the Liberals/Greens/NDP. Without fail. Try it sometime!~!
Nothing on the website when I checked just now. Lots of warm & fuzzy “reconnecting with the voters” editorials but this little update seems to have missed that news room. Impossible to believe because it’s all over both sides of the blogs.
Bill, it’s the first search result: http://www.cbc.ca/video/#/News/ID=1543527210
And seeing as Little Mosque‘s creator Zarqa Nawaz still lives in Regina – or so she reported via her most recent op-ed piece for the Globe and Mail just before Canada Day – I hope that she’ll be keeping a closer eye on things for the next season’s worth of episodes about that sort of thing.
That essay – on the true utility of the balaclava to the average Canadian – was by turns both funny and sobering.
I was looking for it in print but video works too. Was that quip at the end news, or was that just a reference to Harper Diesel, the company that fixed the bus?
So the CBC is viewed / listened to by 6% of Canadians and its budget is 1 billion?
Let’s see, that’s only $537 per listener / viewer per year.
Don’t worry Louise and Nancy. We’ve covered it. It hasn’t cost you a cent.
Good. I’ll be happy to accept my $537 refund the next time I file my income tax return.
I don’t think you understood, Louise. I said only the CBC viewers/ listeners are paying $537 a year. Not you. Your $537 is free to go towards the sports equipment tax credit or the art supply tax credit or the child care tax credit, or whichever other hair-brained Conservative policy you want to pay for. I’ll pay for the CBC, you pay for all that crap I don’t want to have to pay for, then we’ll all be happy.
Isn’t it great how it works? We all pay into the system, and the system provides a diverse range of services and tax credits to satisfy our diverse population.
It’s sad that some people think that all that money from all those diverse groups of people should pay only for what they want and nothing else. Rather self-centred I must say.
Rather, Louise, may I suggest that you consider your $537 spent on government services that you actually want/need?
Wait a minute; we’re not debating tax credits, or sports, or healthcare spending, or equilization payments, etc. We’re debating only the waste that is the CBC.
“But, gov’t wastes money on other things!” is not a defence.
“the system provides a diverse range of services and tax credits to satisfy our diverse population.”
Right, one of the most wasteful and unused being the CBC.
We don’t know anything untill the Auditor general gives it a hard, long look over. The CBC need to open it’s books and come clean with the taxpayers.
Your $537 is free to go towards the sports equipment tax credit or the art supply tax credit or the child care tax credit, or whichever other hair-brained Conservative policy you want to pay for.
=======================
Okay. I’ll wait ’till next year and see where it says on my tax return form that I can target my $537 to only those programs that are of use for me. Wanna bet there won’t be such a line on the form?
Rob,
One person’s idea of waste is another person’s idea of an essential service. Just because you think the CBC is a gigantic waste doesn’t make your opinion an objective fact.
I didn’t actually say the goverment wastes money on other things too. Unlike Conservatives, I’m not possessed of such a pompous sense of entitlement that I would describe programs that serve others but not me as “a waste.”
Dwight Williams says:
Rather, Louise, may I suggest that you consider your $537 spent on government services that you actually want/need?
==============
Tell you what. I’ll put mine into health care if you put yours into the CBC. That means next time you need to see a doctor or spend any time in the hospital, it’s on your own dime. Deal?
I suspect you might consider publicly funded health care a wee bit more important that a publicly funded broadcaster.
We need both of those, and I don’t plan on giving up either one for the other. Not planning to be persuaded to choose a false economy anytime soon.
Dwight Williams: “We need both of those, and I don’t plan on giving up either one for the other. Not planning to be persuaded to choose a false economy anytime soon.”
Interesting that you use the word “choose” while almost in the same breath you have no problem with “forcing” something on those whose choice might be different.
Everyone at one time or another will “need” medical services, but we hardly “need” a tax funded broadcaster, at least certainly not in the same sense. You’re all for giving citizens choice – that’s choice from a range of options that you get to select for them.