Media's hot air on Kyoto
fifeboy @ Mon Jan 01, 2007 9:03 am
Clogeroo Clogeroo:
$1:
I'll bet you more people watch that then CBC @6.
Is that even broadcasted here?
I think Fox is available by subscription on cable. I dont listen to CBC TV at 6 either, I listen to CBC radio 1 for most of my news at that time.
Always4Iggy @ Mon Jan 01, 2007 4:38 pm
ridenrain ridenrain:
There is no doubt the CBC are terribly partisan and the rest do what they think makes most people buy newspapers.
Ridenrain, for people to take you seriously, you have to avoid contradicting yourself in the same sentence.
You have two points here:
a. You say that CBC is terribly partisan (and you mean they are pro Liberal.)
b. You say that other papers cater to their buyers, (and it so happens that most newspaper buyers buy Liberal papers.)
There are some serious mental deficiencies in your single sentence.
First if what you say about the 'rest of the media' is true, then CBC is not partisan, but simply reflecting the needs of the majority.
Second if what you say is true, then ask yourself why Conservatives do not buy newspapers. Is it because they are unread, semi-literate folks?
Third unless you have a good answer for this, it simply means that CBC caters to people who read and spend on newspapers, which is the educated crowd, who like to think and who vote with their brains.
hwacker @ Mon Jan 01, 2007 5:23 pm
Always4Iggy Always4Iggy:
ridenrain ridenrain:
There is no doubt the CBC are terribly partisan and the rest do what they think makes most people buy newspapers.
Ridenrain, for people to take you seriously, you have to avoid contradicting yourself in the same sentence.
You have two points here:
a. You say that CBC is terribly partisan (and you mean they are pro Liberal.)
b. You say that other papers cater to their buyers, (and it so happens that most newspaper buyers buy Liberal papers.)
There are some serious mental deficiencies in your single sentence.
First if what you say about the 'rest of the media' is true, then CBC is not partisan, but simply reflecting the needs of the majority.
Second if what you say is true, then ask yourself why Conservatives do not buy newspapers. Is it because they are unread, semi-literate folks?
Third unless you have a good answer for this, it simply means that CBC caters to people who read and spend on newspapers, which is the educated crowd, who like to think and who vote with their brains.
Typical Liberal BS, Damn you’re going in circles, circle jerk.
Keep bashing us we’ll have the last laugh when the CBC loses HNiC and goes they way of PBS in the USA. Obviously you have a real problem with seeing what’s happening in Canada or you’re completely blind. As for “simply reflecting the needs of the majority” better get watching they’ll be gone faster then you can say lying liberal.
PS if you're educated you better get back to the school you attended and ask for a refund tout suite.
Always4Iggy @ Mon Jan 01, 2007 5:29 pm
ridenrain ridenrain:
There is no doubt the CBC are terribly partisan and the rest do what they think makes most people buy newspapers.
Always4Iggy Always4Iggy:
Ridenrain, for people to take you seriously, you have to avoid contradicting yourself in the same sentence.
You have two points here:
a. You say that CBC is terribly partisan (and you mean they are pro Liberal.)
b. You say that other papers cater to their buyers, (and it so happens that most newspaper buyers buy Liberal papers.)
There are some serious mental deficiencies in your single sentence.
First if what you say about the 'rest of the media' is true, then CBC is not partisan, but simply reflecting the needs of the majority.
Second if what you say is true, then ask yourself why Conservatives do not buy newspapers. Is it because they are unread, semi-literate folks?
Third unless you have a good answer for this, it simply means that CBC caters to people who read and spend on newspapers, which is the educated crowd, who like to think and who vote with their brains.
You have two points here:
a. You say that CBC is terribly partisan (and you mean they are pro Liberal.)
b. You say that other papers cater to their buyers, (and it so happens that most newspaper buyers buy Liberal papers.)
There are some serious mental deficiencies in your single sentence.
First if what you say about the 'rest of the media' is true, then CBC is not partisan, but simply reflecting the needs of the majority.
Second if what you say is true, then ask yourself why Conservatives do not buy newspapers. Is it because they are unread, semi-literate folks?
Third unless you have a good answer for this, it simply means that CBC caters to people who read and spend on newspapers, which is the educated crowd, who like to think and who vote with their brains.
hwacker hwacker:
Typical Liberal BS, Damn you’re going in circles, circle jerk. Keep bashing us we’ll have the last laugh when the CBC loses HNiC and goes they way of PBS in the USA. Obviously you have a real problem with seeing what’s happening in Canada or you’re completely blind. As for “simply reflecting the needs of the majority” better get watching they’ll be gone faster then you can say lying liberal.
Listen, you h(arper)wacker,
Why would we worry about CBC, when according to Ridenrain, the entire media is anyway Liberal? If CBC goes off the air, some other liberal channel will simply get our business!
hwacker @ Mon Jan 01, 2007 5:36 pm
Always4Iggy Always4Iggy:
ridenrain ridenrain:
There is no doubt the CBC are terribly partisan and the rest do what they think makes most people buy newspapers.
Always4Iggy Always4Iggy:
Ridenrain, for people to take you seriously, you have to avoid contradicting yourself in the same sentence.
You have two points here:
a. You say that CBC is terribly partisan (and you mean they are pro Liberal.)
b. You say that other papers cater to their buyers, (and it so happens that most newspaper buyers buy Liberal papers.)
There are some serious mental deficiencies in your single sentence.
First if what you say about the 'rest of the media' is true, then CBC is not partisan, but simply reflecting the needs of the majority.
Second if what you say is true, then ask yourself why Conservatives do not buy newspapers. Is it because they are unread, semi-literate folks?
Third unless you have a good answer for this, it simply means that CBC caters to people who read and spend on newspapers, which is the educated crowd, who like to think and who vote with their brains.
You have two points here:
a. You say that CBC is terribly partisan (and you mean they are pro Liberal.)
b. You say that other papers cater to their buyers, (and it so happens that most newspaper buyers buy Liberal papers.)
There are some serious mental deficiencies in your single sentence.
First if what you say about the 'rest of the media' is true, then CBC is not partisan, but simply reflecting the needs of the majority.
Second if what you say is true, then ask yourself why Conservatives do not buy newspapers. Is it because they are unread, semi-literate folks?
Third unless you have a good answer for this, it simply means that CBC caters to people who read and spend on newspapers, which is the educated crowd, who like to think and who vote with their brains.
hwacker hwacker:
Typical Liberal BS, Damn you’re going in circles, circle jerk.
Keep bashing us we’ll have the last laugh when the CBC loses HNiC and goes they way of PBS in the USA. Obviously you have a real problem with seeing what’s happening in Canada or you’re completely blind. As for “simply reflecting the needs of the majority” better get watching they’ll be gone faster then you can say lying liberal.
Listen, you h(arper)wacker,
Why would we worry about CBC, when according to Ridenrain, the entire media is anyway Liberal? If CBC goes off the air, some other liberal channel will simply get our business!
With what $$$ you're broke.
Clogeroo @ Mon Jan 01, 2007 5:43 pm
$1:
I think Fox is available by subscription on cable. I dont listen to CBC TV at 6 either, I listen to CBC radio 1 for most of my news at that time.
Actually I do get Fox I just noticed and they have news on there too. Not sure why would anyone watch it though unless you really want information from the United States.
$1:
Ridenrain, for people to take you seriously, you have to avoid contradicting yourself in the same sentence.
You have two points here:
a. You say that CBC is terribly partisan (and you mean they are pro Liberal.)
b. You say that other papers cater to their buyers, (and it so happens that most newspaper buyers buy Liberal papers.)
There are some serious mental deficiencies in your single sentence.
First if what you say about the 'rest of the media' is true, then CBC is not partisan, but simply reflecting the needs of the majority.
Second if what you say is true, then ask yourself why Conservatives do not buy newspapers. Is it because they are unread, semi-literate folks?
Third unless you have a good answer for this, it simply means that CBC caters to people who read and spend on newspapers, which is the educated crowd, who like to think and who vote with their brains.
You have two points here:
a. You say that CBC is terribly partisan (and you mean they are pro Liberal.)
b. You say that other papers cater to their buyers, (and it so happens that most newspaper buyers buy Liberal papers.)
There are some serious mental deficiencies in your single sentence.
First if what you say about the 'rest of the media' is true, then CBC is not partisan, but simply reflecting the needs of the majority.
Second if what you say is true, then ask yourself why Conservatives do not buy newspapers. Is it because they are unread, semi-literate folks?
Third unless you have a good answer for this, it simply means that CBC caters to people who read and spend on newspapers, which is the educated crowd, who like to think and who vote with their brains.
I don't think the CBC reflects the needs of any majority for not many people even watch its programmes anymore. If the CBC was for more intelligent, educated people as you stated then why is its number one programme Hockey Night in Canada, which consists of players bashing each other into semi glass boards and shooting a puck into a net? Also intelligent people read, write, and discuss matters not just stare at an idiot box that’s standards are meant for anyone with a Grade 6 education.
The original purpose of even having the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation was because at the time there was little or no Canadian programming on our radio waves so the CBC was created to provide some coverage of Canadian affairs so we could have a voice in our country. The same could be said about CBC televisions creation as well or expansion. But times have changed we now have other national networks that broadcast across the country as well as dozens of regional and local programming. Many have created even more popular programmes than our national broadcaster and have attracted much larger audiences. The CBC even with its bigger programmes can not even reach a million people anymore or barley even half a million which is less than 2% of the population.
Which brings up the question many people are asking why should Canadians be paying over a billion dollars for a service most people never or barley use? If it is as biased as any other network or more so then what is the point of having it? There really isn’t in this day and age where information is so widely available and many other networks could easily cover or take over services the CBC has covered.
fifeboy @ Mon Jan 01, 2007 5:58 pm
Clogeroo Clogeroo:
Which brings up the question many people are asking why should Canadians be paying over a billion dollars for a service most people never or barley use? If it is as biased as any other network or more so then what is the point of having it? There really isn’t in this day and age where information is so widely available and many other networks could easily cover or take over services the CBC has covered.
Its just my opinion, but I like the CBC. I just wish it would do its job better. Especially the job of showing Canada to Canadians. Any government that got rid of the CBC would have my distrust for ever. And as far as a liberal bias goes, I can't see it. I have watched CTV news and can't find much difference in how they handle stories. If you like bias, especially conservative bias, try watching Fox. I do when I am in the U.S. and find it shocking, stupid and funny, in that order. Next time I go I am going with Sirius Sat. radio so I can hear the World at Six on CBC 1.
Always4Iggy @ Mon Jan 01, 2007 6:15 pm
ridenrain ridenrain:
There is no doubt the CBC are terribly partisan and the rest do what they think makes most people buy newspapers.
Always4iggy Always4iggy:
Ridenrain, for people to take you seriously, you have to avoid contradicting yourself in the same sentence.
You have two points here:
a. You say that CBC is terribly partisan (and you mean they are pro Liberal.)
b. You say that other papers cater to their buyers, (and it so happens that most newspaper buyers buy Liberal papers.)
There are some serious mental deficiencies in your single sentence.
First if what you say about the 'rest of the media' is true, then CBC is not partisan, but simply reflecting the needs of the majority.
Second if what you say is true, then ask yourself why Conservatives do not buy newspapers. Is it because they are unread, semi-literate folks?
Third unless you have a good answer for this, it simply means that CBC caters to people who read and spend on newspapers, which is the educated crowd, who like to think and who vote with their brains.
You have two points here:
a. You say that CBC is terribly partisan (and you mean they are pro Liberal.)
b. You say that other papers cater to their buyers, (and it so happens that most newspaper buyers buy Liberal papers.)
There are some serious mental deficiencies in your single sentence.
First if what you say about the 'rest of the media' is true, then CBC is not partisan, but simply reflecting the needs of the majority.
Second if what you say is true, then ask yourself why Conservatives do not buy newspapers. Is it because they are unread, semi-literate folks?
Third unless you have a good answer for this, it simply means that CBC caters to people who read and spend on newspapers, which is the educated crowd, who like to think and who vote with their brains.
Clogeroo Clogeroo:
I don't think the CBC reflects the needs of any majority for not many people even watch its programmes anymore.
...The CBC even with its bigger programmes can not even reach a million people anymore or barley even half a million which is less than 2% of the population.
Well, your statement reflects a different position from ridenrain, but appears to be more researched and carefully thought through. But honestly, clogeroo, if only numbers matter, then we need less libraries, symphony orchestras, museums and such. Some things are counted for their quality, not their reach....The CBC even with its bigger programmes can not even reach a million people anymore or barley even half a million which is less than 2% of the population.
Clogeroo Clogeroo:
If the CBC was for more intelligent, educated people as you stated then why is its number one programme Hockey Night in Canada, which consists of players bashing each other into semi glass boards and shooting a puck into a net? Also intelligent people read, write, and discuss matters not just stare at an idiot box that’s standards are meant for anyone with a Grade 6 education.
Perhaps because of the pressure to cater to the less demanding viewers? Clogeroo Clogeroo:
The original purpose of even having the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation was because at the time there was little or no Canadian programming on our radio waves so the CBC was created to provide some coverage of Canadian affairs so we could have a voice in our country. The same could be said about CBC televisions creation as well or expansion. But times have changed we now have other national networks that broadcast across the country as well as dozens of regional and local programming. Many have created even more popular programmes than our national broadcaster and have attracted much larger audiences.
In that case, we should also shut down the BBC. Private channels are good, but entirely based upon revenue. I find it impossible to sit through a CNN news program, for instance, though it has world wide popularity. One of my favourite anchors, Aaron Brown, was actually removed by them, due to poor ratings!Clogeroo Clogeroo:
Which brings up the question many people are asking why should Canadians be paying over a billion dollars for a service most people never or barley use? If it is as biased as any other network or more so then what is the point of having it? There really isn’t in this day and age where information is so widely available and many other networks could easily cover or take over services the CBC has covered.
I think that argument is a basic con party argument in another form.a. why child care, when it can be provided 'for profit'?
b. why health care when it can be done by private hospitals?
c. why schools, when private schools are around?
d. why environment legislation, when industry wants to regulate itself?
There is no answer to that, except the will of the voters. People have to decide what political system they want, and how much must be privatised.
The US set itself as the standard of successful private enterprise, but today, 43 million americans have no health coverage!
But the answer I suggest is the same for all forms of the conservative argument, it is as follows:
$1:
Instead of shrinking the role of government in social welfare, suggest instead ways of increasing the usefulness of money spent. You conservatives claim to know about private sector efficiency, while you are in government, show us how to make expenditure more efficient, not how to make it less.
Instead, for example, I find that Harper failed in his election promise to achieve wait times goals by the end of 2006.
OnTheIce @ Mon Jan 01, 2007 7:11 pm
Always4Iggy Always4Iggy:
ridenrain ridenrain:
There is no doubt the CBC are terribly partisan and the rest do what they think makes most people buy newspapers.
Always4iggy Always4iggy:
Ridenrain, for people to take you seriously, you have to avoid contradicting yourself in the same sentence.
You have two points here:
a. You say that CBC is terribly partisan (and you mean they are pro Liberal.)
b. You say that other papers cater to their buyers, (and it so happens that most newspaper buyers buy Liberal papers.)
There are some serious mental deficiencies in your single sentence.
First if what you say about the 'rest of the media' is true, then CBC is not partisan, but simply reflecting the needs of the majority.
Second if what you say is true, then ask yourself why Conservatives do not buy newspapers. Is it because they are unread, semi-literate folks?
Third unless you have a good answer for this, it simply means that CBC caters to people who read and spend on newspapers, which is the educated crowd, who like to think and who vote with their brains.
You have two points here:
a. You say that CBC is terribly partisan (and you mean they are pro Liberal.)
b. You say that other papers cater to their buyers, (and it so happens that most newspaper buyers buy Liberal papers.)
There are some serious mental deficiencies in your single sentence.
First if what you say about the 'rest of the media' is true, then CBC is not partisan, but simply reflecting the needs of the majority.
Second if what you say is true, then ask yourself why Conservatives do not buy newspapers. Is it because they are unread, semi-literate folks?
Third unless you have a good answer for this, it simply means that CBC caters to people who read and spend on newspapers, which is the educated crowd, who like to think and who vote with their brains.
Clogeroo Clogeroo:
I don't think the CBC reflects the needs of any majority for not many people even watch its programmes anymore.
...The CBC even with its bigger programmes can not even reach a million people anymore or barley even half a million which is less than 2% of the population.
Well, your statement reflects a different position from ridenrain, but appears to be more researched and carefully thought through. But honestly, clogeroo, if only numbers matter, then we need less libraries, symphony orchestras, museums and such. Some things are counted for their quality, not their reach....The CBC even with its bigger programmes can not even reach a million people anymore or barley even half a million which is less than 2% of the population.
Clogeroo Clogeroo:
If the CBC was for more intelligent, educated people as you stated then why is its number one programme Hockey Night in Canada, which consists of players bashing each other into semi glass boards and shooting a puck into a net? Also intelligent people read, write, and discuss matters not just stare at an idiot box that’s standards are meant for anyone with a Grade 6 education.
Perhaps because of the pressure to cater to the less demanding viewers? Clogeroo Clogeroo:
The original purpose of even having the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation was because at the time there was little or no Canadian programming on our radio waves so the CBC was created to provide some coverage of Canadian affairs so we could have a voice in our country. The same could be said about CBC televisions creation as well or expansion. But times have changed we now have other national networks that broadcast across the country as well as dozens of regional and local programming. Many have created even more popular programmes than our national broadcaster and have attracted much larger audiences.
In that case, we should also shut down the BBC. Private channels are good, but entirely based upon revenue. I find it impossible to sit through a CNN news program, for instance, though it has world wide popularity. One of my favourite anchors, Aaron Brown, was actually removed by them, due to poor ratings!Clogeroo Clogeroo:
Which brings up the question many people are asking why should Canadians be paying over a billion dollars for a service most people never or barley use? If it is as biased as any other network or more so then what is the point of having it? There really isn’t in this day and age where information is so widely available and many other networks could easily cover or take over services the CBC has covered.
I think that argument is a basic con party argument in another form.a. why child care, when it can be provided 'for profit'?
b. why health care when it can be done by private hospitals?
c. why schools, when private schools are around?
d. why environment legislation, when industry wants to regulate itself?
There is no answer to that, except the will of the voters. People have to decide what political system they want, and how much must be privatised.
The US set itself as the standard of successful private enterprise, but today, 43 million americans have no health coverage!
But the answer I suggest is the same for all forms of the conservative argument, it is as follows:
$1:
Instead of shrinking the role of government in social welfare, suggest instead ways of increasing the usefulness of money spent. You conservatives claim to know about private sector efficiency, while you are in government, show us how to make expenditure more efficient, not how to make it less.
Instead, for example, I find that Harper failed in his election promise to achieve wait times goals by the end of 2006.
The moonbat's out tonight!
hwacker @ Mon Jan 01, 2007 7:50 pm
MissT @ Tue Jan 02, 2007 12:43 pm
In the 1920s and 1930s, there was increasing concern that privately owned Canadian radio stations were falling into American hands and failing to provide a Canadian alternative to US programming. It was decided (under a Conservative government, due to public pressure) that public ownership of broadcasting was necessary to protect Canada from cultural penetration from America. The CBC, (or actually, its predecessor the Canadian Radio Broadcasting Commission) was set up in response. The BBC helped them to set it up.
Later, under a Liberal government, the CRBC became the CBC, amending some of the flaws of the original CRBC structure in 1936. It became a Crown Corporation, with public funding and license fees, and less vulnerable to political pressure than its predecessor.
I think it's important to remember this history and mandate, to recognise that CBC plays a valuable role for Canadians. We can already see from the conversations on this thread how powerful Fox and CNN are (even though they are total crap and their "news" is only swallowed by salivating cavemen). How easy it would be for privately owned US stations to colonise Canadian culture if we didn't have CBC there to help us to remember that we are Canadian. Long live the CBC! (Let's just hope it manages to resist the pressure to dumb down like almost everything else in North America.)
Oh, and regarding all the "liberal bias" of the media on Kyoto, I would say that the reason the current government is getting more flack for its weak environmental policies, is mainly because the the world is waking up to the fact we actually DO need to act on Climate Change. The Libs got away with their inaction because Canadians (and the rest of the world) let them. But 2006 has really been the year when the threat of Climate Change is starting to get the recognition it deserves.
The Canadian media suddenly caring about government action on climate change is not because of a Lib bias or strong Con leadership. Concern about Climate Change is part of a global phenomenon, and the Cons better wake up to it fast. Thank God, I say. Instead of finger pointing and crying like a 5 year old about getting told off, Harper needs to get off his ass and actually do something.
And to those Cons on this forum who still would like to believe Climate Change isn't taking place - shouldn't you be applauding the Libs for their inaction? 
hwacker @ Tue Jan 02, 2007 12:57 pm
Liberal weak environmental policies X12
And just so we are clear, "even though they are total crap and their "news" is only swallowed by salivating cavemen"
So the CBC's absurd take on the world is for fags and woman ?
Nothing like being a bigot eh MissT
ridenrain @ Tue Jan 02, 2007 1:02 pm
As a Kyoto supporter, perhaps you can explain how the world benefits when countries like China, India, and the Arab Emirates are unaffected by this treaties. China already leads the world in pollution and when they build 500 more coal powered generators, the problem will be much worst. We should be slapping tariffs on their products until they stop polluting, instead of sending them money in the form of carbon taxes.
As for the CBC. They are not doing their job. FOX, CNN, BCC provide competition and proof that the CBC has become stale.
MissT @ Tue Jan 02, 2007 1:06 pm
hwacker hwacker:
Liberal weak environmental policies X12
And just so we are clear, "even though they are total crap and their "news" is only swallowed by salivating cavemen"
So the CBC's absurd take on the world is for fags and woman ?
Nothing like being a bigot eh MissT
And just so we are clear, "even though they are total crap and their "news" is only swallowed by salivating cavemen"
So the CBC's absurd take on the world is for fags and woman ?
Nothing like being a bigot eh MissT
Oops you're right, I should have at least said "salivating cavepeople."
Clogeroo @ Tue Jan 02, 2007 1:16 pm
MissT if only a small minority watch the CBC how is that protecting anything? Not many people care about it and if they do many don't even watch it themselves. Other private networks produce Canadian programmes and television films that are more popular and better than what the CBC produces. Canadians love foreign programmes as well that is why we watch them all. Especially American programmes but that can be said about most of the world too. There is a joke about that actually.
Americans: Spend most of their lives glued to the idiot box.
Canadians: Don't, but only because they can't get more American channels.
Brits: Pay a tax just so they can watch four channels.
Australians: Export all their crappy programs, which no-one there watches, to Britain, where everybody loves them.