Do you miss CBC Radio or CBC Television?
I asked the questions on a few occasions since the locked out began over 40 days ago.
I get the feeling that not too many people missed it.
Myself, I am a news freak and I always watch the news at 6:00pm! I changed the channel from ATV to Global news.
I forgot about CBC! Maybe it’s because I have other things on my mind?
Who knows?
Maybe as many other issues in life, I adjusted to a world without necessities? So maybe this is what's happening in this case?
One day, I noticed this guy communicating through the windows in the media building next to the Legislature.
Hey? I'm certain they wish to return to work!!!!
One person told me < female > that she truly missed CBC!
I might add the individual lives in na na land. She lives in the country < Queenstown > and I believe that CBC radio is the only connection in the rural areas.
Speaking of nowhere land?
I heard from many Acadians that they truly missed CBC in the north Shore.
This include Radio and Television.
I wanted to find out what was going on in this locked out?
I walked up Regent Street and met the protesters a couple of weeks ago.
I stayed with one of them for around 25 minutes and walked the picket line while asking questions.
The bottom line in this dispute is seniority.
Did you know the youngest worker who has seniority is 42 years old?
These workers are fighting for our future generations.
Management wish to hire workers by contract!
My God? Isn’t this Irving’s style? They better get rid of this picture?
You see? Management want to hire someone for a six month to a one year contract.
Do you know what this means?
Backstabbers and rats will be granted an extension to their contract.
In 20 years from now? There would be no seniority therefore no unions.
It would be a terrible atmosphere to work in!
It would be like working for the Irvings!
I’m surprised this locked out isn’t over yet because there seem to be MP’S stopping by in support of the workers.
So what do you think?
Do you miss CBC?
I truly miss people like this guy.
but most definetely not this guy on the left -
These days the workers are blogglers!!! Question? By being Blogglers? Did they increase or lowered their standards of Journalism? I say they climbed the ladder!!!!...lol
You can go and visit their blog site at
target="_blank">Charles
Blog
58 comments:
Do I miss the CBC...NO !!!!!
Don't feel we're getting enough of a return from that animal for our tax dollars. Of course they're very important to the future of our country...Just ask them...they'll tell you. Methinks they take themselves too seriously.
As far as the 6 month contract solution goes..NB civil service has been doing this consistently since the McKenna years. Nothing new. Do I think it's fair..no. Do i think the CBC will change things..NO. Do I think the NB civil service will change things..no. It's a cheaper alternative when you don't have to pay a worker benifits. And lets face it folks this is an easy way to whittle away at the bottom line.
Take a look at the quality of news since the lockout, it's dropped substancially. Of course here in New Brunswick we are well trained in the "it's not fair but you can't do anything about it" routine, Irving's brought us up on it. Just take a look at coverage of ANY union negotiations.
what's especially funny is to hear the complaint about wasting tax dollars. First, per capita it costs literally $30 a year per person. Second, New Brunswick gets 40% of its operating budget from the federal government. In other words, OTHER canadians are paying for the CBC-not you. It's free!!
The Irvings have already said to get rid of the CBC, no big surprise there. What's really impressive is the power of the media in a province whose members don't pay a dime for the service yet still berate it.
In fact, you are paying a higher price for everything simply because of a monopoly on media. Rates are set by Irving and they can set them as high as they want because they're the only game in town. That's MORE money that leaves your community into Irving's pocket. Funny how people never talk about that.
No Charles, I don't miss any aspect of the CBC at all.
CBC provides the objective and local news. There were anti-war demonstration in Fredericton and hardly any media covered it. ATV only talked about the one in Halifax. Yet numerous CBC reporters were there. Not to report as they cannot because of lockout but just to provide support to anti-war efforts. With CBC gone it will be death of objective reporting.
Surely Lord is happy that there is a CBC lockout. CBC provides some good exposé.
Quite true, here's my list of what will NEVER be covered by Irving news:
1. Protests the day they happen (so people can get to them).
2. Government bills which overwhelming support corporations
3. Substantive analysis of any social issue
4. CONTINUING coverage of any social issue
5. Analysis of the political machinations of other areas (then we'd find out how much better everybody else does politics)
6. Union meetings
7. Union membership drives
8. Analysis of any industry Irving is involved in.
9. Satire or political cartooning making fun of Irvings
10. POSITIVE forestry initiatives from other areas or by groups other than those run by forestry corporations (in other words they only offer propaganda from the forestry industry)
11. Any more than one paragraph which criticizes handling of a political issue which Irving agrees with by the provincial government
12 Any more than one paragraph that praises a government initiative which DOESN"T benefit Irving
13. Any meeting of social groups analyzing political and social issues
14. Activists are usually downplayed, unless they are fighting for 'corporate rights'
And that's right off the top of my head. So people can talk about how they dislike the CBC, just keep in mind the above points if you read only the Irving news (personally I get all my news online but CBC does do the analysis that others don't). In other words, if all your info only comes from Irving, boy are you dumbbbbbbbbbbbbb!
9:43am - Your post just proves what is wrong with CBC. How can they provide as you state objective reporting if they're at a rally to support anti-war efforts? By doing that they have taken a side in an issue (rather publicly I might add). Everyone has biases and opinions, even reporters and I appreciate that but you have to seperate those biases from your reporting life. If it was so obvious that it was CBC personnel participating in an anti-war effort, how could you ever trust them to give you unbiased reporting on the war. You can't. The smart reporters don't join groups they might be reporting on and they don't participate in things they might be reporting on. I appreciate your point on this but I'm going toa ssume you're not a journalist. CBC reporters should know better and they pull this stuff all the time and then claim to be unbiased. I'd feel better if they at least told the truth and said "yeah we have biases and we report that way". Instead they still claim that things like this doesn't affect the reporting. It has to and it does.
Spinks, apparently you have your own definition of objectivity. There is absolutely nothing wrong to join a really like that even if they were not reporting. That is called dedication to certain causes which are right and not a bias. They are not robots they are humans and they hear & see about killings of young American soldiers and young, old, men, women being killed in this sensless war. They hear about it like rest of us.
May be you are pro-war even if it is a illegitimate war. Even veterans of second world war were there. No one knows better about wars than veterans. May be you have some special knowledge but I do bow to these veterans.
11:45: I am anti-war generally, and particularly opposed to the American invasion and occupation of Iraq. However, surely you see Spinks' point? If news reporters were participating in a "Support Our Troops" rally on a pro-LNG-tax-break rally, wouldn't you think that was inappropriate? Do you want objective reporting, or do you prefer biased reporters, as long as their biases are in agreement with your opinions?
You're right Draken, there is biases in other media as well. But I don't see Global reporters or Telegraph Journal reporters taking part in anti-war demonstrations. It's juat a bad idea because anyone who saw you there is going to now question your objectivity. If for example I'm a pro-war spokesperson, I won't want to give an interview to a reporter who was marching in an anti-war demonstration because my chances of getting a fair shake is slim and I know it. Plus of course I pay for CBC through my taxes so I hold them to a higher standard. All Canadians should.
On Rogers, D, I merely said they provide a lot of local material largely with volunteers. Considering those factors they do a pretty good job. Obviously quality wise, it's not the best media. How could it be when the people doing it aren't even paid? However it's not bad and much improved from the Fundy Cable days and it offers an opportunity for average NBers to get on TV. I like seeing that.
As a matter of fact CBC workers were there to point out the struggle between bourgeois and working class. Iraq war is for oil-rich bourgeois. It is all about oil grab. The workers were pointing out that they were involved in a similar struggle, fighting the corporate-minded management.
Anyone who thinks CBC has serious problems and Rogers does a great job in providing news reveals a lot of himself. Is there a need to say more? Welcome to new age of news where gossip is news and real news are boring.
I don't think I've ever turned on the CBC and heard them say "and now the unbiased objective news". To claim that reporters should not be allowed freedom of expression is quite a step towards China. Personally, I'd rather know a persons biases rather than turn on ATV and listen to a reporter you know absolutely nothing about. Just because something is 'left' doesn't mean it's wrong.
Reporters on the street of course gravitate to whereever other groups of people are, that's how you get your voice across. God knows New Brunswick isn't the friendliest place for unions.
As for taxes, well, let's not go back to that again. Irving was given 50 million dollars two years ago by the feds and now just got a nice tax break-that pays for an awful lot of the supposed 'tax free' media that Irving owns. That's a pretty heavy duty subsidy, and effectively means that in New Brunswick YOU, the taxpayer are paying FAR more for Irving news than you are for the CBC. So so much for tax arguments. In NB YOU pay nothing, in fact the feds pay 40% of ALL your government spending.
As for cable, well, I wonder why all Rogers channels are volunteer run? Gee, could it be union busting? The guy who owns Rogers is now the richest man in Canada and the company is literally rolling in billions of dollars, but they can't pay a dozer or so people to work at their stations? Funny how when it's private industry screwing people over there are always lackies to tell us 'how well they're doing at it'
3:43 PM right on.$50 million plus another $125 million in tax breaks to Irvings and no accountability of any kind. Then 6 million for Bernie's favourit beer Molson, no accountability. Someone is going non-stop at CBC. It can be only attributed to ignorance.
I don't totally agree 3:43 (yeah, I know newsflash, Spinks disagrees) but some great points. The discussion here is getting better all the time. Looks like a few new visitors lately, so that's great.
Good points on Rogers. (I hope I'm not the lacky, you're talking about. That was not my intent.) Yep, Ted Rogers is loaded with a capital L, no question but I believe it's the CRTC which dictates how a community channel runs and that it has to be so many volunteers, etc. I stand to be corrected on that point. If I'm wrong, then sure pay all the volunteers because they can afford it. Still, it's one of the few places you can go, and if you pitch a decent idea with a good vision, your show stands a good chance of getting on the air. Bottom line is they're private and they can do pretty much what they want. Our choice is to watch or read something else (except for newspapers, I know our choices in NB are limited)
I don't think we're headed toward China and I don't think it's asking all that much for reporters to be careful what they associate themselves with. They're taught this in journalism school so they know what they're supposed to do and how you have to be careful on publicly taking part in stuff you might cover. It's just common sense. A reporter risks not be taken seriously or at all if they publicly taken a stand on an issue they're repoting on.
I agree "'left' doesn't mean it's wrong," but it also doesn't mean it's always right, although I am pleased to see someone recognize that CBC has left leanings. Obvious if they're taking part in anti-war protests.
If the feds are paying 40% of the bill for whatever, I'm still concerned. I for one pay federal taxes as well.
5:20, tax breaks for Irving and Molson? Yeah, I'll agree with you, that isn't right. They don't NEED taxpayer dollars. (the guy who says I'm the Lord spokeperson should write that down)
If anyone thinks Rogers is a good news source then it is that person's problem. CBC is the only one who does investigative reporting. There is lot more waste of taxpayer's dollar unaccounted for. At least in case of CBC everything is in the public eye. I am now even greater fan of CBC workers that they do care for fellow human-beings. CBC has exposed many ills in our society including racism and New Brunswick has plenty of that. Lord government is actually promoting racism by treating a native MLA the way it did. Someone has to expose that and CBC does a good job.
Lord government wants to censor reporters now. CBC gives the objective reporting and exposes Lord government. It looks Spinks is sore about that. His criticism of CBC is simply sickening.
Gee Draken, I haven't seen this side of you. Anyway, you read my comments pretty accurately. A CBC reporter or any reporter for that matter shouldn't take part in something they could be covering and they shouldn't be involved with a group they may have to cover. They simply can't claim impartiality once they go out in public and take up a cause and if their presence was so obvious that people noticed a) who they were, b) who they were with and c) whose side they were on, there's a serious problem. Like I said they learn this stuff in Journalism School in their ethics classes so this is hardly new to them and I'm surprised they would do such a thing. Maybe the lockout's affecting their judgement, I don't know. This just isn't a smart thing to do as a reporter. Pretty much any reporter would probably recognize that. Is it fair? Maybe not, but that's the way it is.
On bias, I have no probleme being exposed to left wing thoughts and ideology but I don't want all left wing thoughts and ideologies anymore than I want all right wing thoughts and idologies. I want balance and we should all demand that of media especially our public broadcaster. In the States the media is actually very left wing with two notable exceptions. Talk Radio is on the right and so is Fox News. The main broadcasters like NBC, CBS, ABC and of course the biggest paper in the US which sets the news agenda, the New York Times, are very much on the left.
And I have to watch and listen to CBC, D. I'm paying for it. I better see what I'm getting.
Spinks..
You must be fan of Rush Limbaugh. A crazy man. Fox is eqally bad and very right.
You raise a good point although newspapers give their reporters leeway from time to time with columns, etc, so there's isn't a huge difference in what CFBC does or CBC even does from time to time when they offer a bit of editorial comment. Ideally, I'd like to see the editorial completly seperated from the reporting to ensure the two don't meet but that's me.
However D, what we're talking about here is blatant activism like marching in a rally on...well anything they might report on. It just looks bad and as I mentioned they know it looks bad because they're taught that it looks bad. Like I said, I'm not surprised some here would be okay with it especially if the CBC reporters are siding with you on an issue. The point is they're not supposed to take sides in such a public way because the journalistic credibility goes down the toilet. They're not stupid or they wouldn't be where they are but it is a dumb thing for any reporter to do and I'm surprised they would do it. To flip it around, would you or some of the others here who think this is okay feel the same way if the same reporters were actively taking part in and supporting a pro-war rally?
Well the anti-war protest is a pretty good recent example of bias at CBC. LOL.
Seriously though, I've given a few examples of bias on the blogs here before at CBC but obviously there's nothing fresh. Like I've said there's bias in pretty well all media and I don't like any of it, left or right because it doesn't serve the public well. As you know I simply hold CBC to a higher standard for the reasons you're aware of. I always enjoy the discussion with you D. Cheers.
D., Peter Kent former CBC and Global Anchor now Conservative candidate is in the papers with some interesting comments about bias in media. Check it out.
There are also some interesting studies out there, such as in the US, only 7% of journalists call themselves conservatives while 88% call themselves liberals. I suspect Canada is the same or maybe even worse. There's a huge drive to balance newsrooms when it comes to race, sexual orientation, etc., and that is a good thing as long as you get the best person for the job, but when it comes to ways of thinking, the stats show newsrooms are way off with the population. That skews coverage and it's unfortunate that few inside the media see it, particularly if they think taking part in a protest is fine, because I imagine they think anyone should feel the same way. That's a problem.
Journalists are well educated.They understand the political system better than average Joe on the street. If they become left wing, accoding to you Spinks, then it shows educated and informed persons have those kinds of views.
I am not referring to you but I know some right-wingers personally and they can use some education. There views are uniformed and ignorant. They refuse to listen to others' point of view. I have yet to meet a "left-winger" who was not well-educated.
Again I have absolutely no problem CBC workers being at the rally. No one knows if they were reporters. This discussion just started assuming they were reporters and you felt you got the srongest point against CBC. Check out the facts first. First confirm if they were indeed reporters.
I personally have no problem reporters being there when they are not on duty and not reporting.
Your point is well taken 9:27 and one of your statements makes my point as well. The attitude in media which is largely left-wing (I think we've generally agreed about that) is that, as you said any "educated and informed persons have those kinds of views."
In other words in the media's mind, if you're a person, group, etc. who don't don't share that ideology, (IE: what the media has deemed to be the right side of an issue) you're either not educated or you're not informed. While certianly that may be the case with some who have right wing or left wing thoughts, that's simply not true of everyone. However, media in general blows off anyone who doesn't share what they have deemed to be the correct way of thinking. As I said earlier, would you be okay with CBC people taking an active and public role in a pro-war demonstration? I woiuldn't but maybe you would and if that's the case at least you're okay with them taking part in anything regardless of the cause and I respect that.
To me this is Ethics 101 and the choice they made when they joined the media. It's a conflict of interest and it looks bad. I'll be watching and listening to any war stories produced locally with a skeptical ear and eye when they come back to work.
Why are you so hung up on CBC? Does it not worry you that Lord is doling out millions of tax payers' dollars left and right to big corporations and or giving extraordinarily big consession to big corporations such as insurance companies? Do the tax dollars have no value there. Does the inaction of Lord government not bother you on VLts and abuse of prescription drugs? You are so hung up on one or two workers going to a rally. Would you confirm if they were actually reporters to start with because that is where your whole argument falls apart? Basically you are saying anyone who works for CBC should be forbidden from public places because they us your 30 tax dollars. Would you get any more illogical and irrational?
As I said earlier to you, there's no need to be hostile. A few people who were at the rally mentioned above that CBC was there, in fact one poster said there were "numerous reporters" there (that doesn't sound like one or two), so that's where this sidebar got started, not me. As far as hung up on CBC...well that's what this particular blog is about so that's why we're all discussing CBC. Sorry you don't like the topic.
I do not know what you mean that you said earlier to me.
You believed very quickly that there were numerous reporters at the rally. You talk about objectivity. Why did you not confirm such an assertion before jumping on the banwagon to discredit CBC reporters?
Are you accusing the people who posted that they were there of lying? To me they seemed to have enough information about the protest before the newspaper was out to give them credibility that they were there.
However, just so I'm clear, are you saying that CBC people weren't there and didn't take part as a few of the posters have stated?
Spinks..
Have you ever thought that that person might have made a mistake. Lying is your word not mine. Should you not verify something like that before hanging the CBC reporters from the nearest telephone pole. Where is your objectivity? Have you verified, just by calling someone, that it indeed happened. You are again playing your silly little games which do not add to your credibility.
Like I said, are you saying the CBC types weren't there taking part? If they weren't it's a non-issue at least in this circumstance. If you're saying they weren't there and the others are saying they were, you guys can duke it out over who's right and I'll stay out of it. That's why I asked you, are you saying they weren't there, yes or no?
Spinks..
You do need help. I said I do not know either. Have you verified before attacking CBC? Also you are a hypocrite. All other kinds of waste of tax $$$ are ok with you but CBC is your target. Do you know that governments are totally dependent on tax $$$? There you see no problem as you are great defender of Lord Government.
Frankly I see no reason to not believe those who said they were there and saw CBC folks because those who said they did see them expressed support of CBC so what is there for them to gain? If they were against CBC and raised it, I'd be more skeptical. Anyway, duke it out with them whether CBC types were there or not. I think it's just you and me still visiting this blog anyway, so I'm done on this one for now, unless someone who was there changes their tune. Cheers.
If CBC sees something as a comment on this blog and gives it as a news then would you call it objective? You are not practicing what you are preaching.
The CBC reporters ARE NOT REPORTERS AT THE PROTEST. In case you missed it, here it is in big letters THE CBC REPORTERS ARE LOCKED OUT AND ON STRIKE-THEY ARE NOT REPORTERS BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT WORKING. If they are not reporters then how can you complain about bias? Where are their stories being printed?? You are basically saying that these people do not have the right of free speech because they are reporters.
Ironically you hit on something interesting there, because Irving reporters, ATV reporters, and, well, any reporter outside the CBC wouldn't DARE show his face at any kind of rally (unless it was obviously un-political) because their boss would fire their asses. So it's ironic that you favour restrictions on certain peoples rights and complain that a government institution doesn't have the same restrictions-very right wing of you.
draken, good one. The guy is not only right wing he is also a total hypocrite. When it comes to Lord he says he deserves all the perks as he would make more in the private sector. Hell, Lord should go in private sector and not waste our tax dollars. Moreover he must not be ruining this province and go away, period.
CBC reporters are great and they do a great job. They do deserve all the changes they are asking for in their current protest.
Media are 'left wing'?? And you think people are in AGREEMENT on that?? Get real.
Of national media we have The national Post (which loses money but is printed because it's so stridently wrong wing). The Globe and Mail is essentially the voice of big business. They also cover sports but as for left wing issues, find me one and we'll discuss it. The Toronto Star is the closest thing to 'left' as you can find, but even they are not what I would call left. Irving news of course is about as 'left' as my right hand.
For television, same thing. ATV is owned by Bell Enterprises, a huge conglomerate with very private interests to protect (which we built up thanks to building their infrastructure, then it was sold). Global, if you think that is 'left wing' then you are seriously uneducated. If you want a list of websites, I'll show you what REAL left wing means.
So where exactly is this 'left wing media' that is being discussed. The closest thing would be college radio and papers, and they aren't exactly available publicly (except radio).
That's not even close about Rogers, stick to what you know. The CRTC certainly doesn't mandate how many paid positions they provide. There are some restrictions for communitiy television, but not on how it is produced. The restrictions are on how much locally produced programming is provided. Plus, it's not even close that 'you have a good chance of getting it on the air'.
HELLO. FACT CHECK.
I was ONE of the THREE locked out Canadian Media Guild members at the anti-war demonstration in Fredericton. During nicer times, I work for a nice little outfit called the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. For the record, I think it's important to state that I am not, nor ever have been a reporter with the CBC. The other two "CBC'ers" at the rally were both casual employees with the CBC before the lockout. One has already left the CBC (sayonara, arrivederci, so long, bye bye) because she had been dragged along for some time now from contract to contract, to no work at all, to casual work, back to a 3 month contract...well, you get the picture. She is in another maritime city as I write this training to work at another network because she didn't know whether or not she would have a job after the lockout ends. The other "CBC'er" at the rally was a casual worker who had been on contract this summer with the CBC in Fredericton. Again, she is entirely unsure about her status following the lockout. She may have a job when this is over...maybe not. Maybe she'll get a contract for a month or so...maybe the CBC will hire her for a day here, a day there...maybe not. We had heard that Jack Layton was expected to speak at the rally and were curious what he might say about the war(s). We were spotted in the crowd by one of the organizers. He asked me to speak. I clearly stated that any participation by a locked out CMG member (a "CBC'er") might be translated by some into some sort of left-wing bias at the CBC. He assured me that all he wanted me to talk about was the lockout. He was concerned that many people weren't getting the facts regarding the CBC lockout because management only tells listeners and viewers that there is a "labour disruption". He asked me to give the crowd ("Probably some of your listeners and viewers are here you know," he said) an update on the current state of negotiations. I told him that as long as he didn't need me to take a stand on the war that I would be happy to share what I knew about the current state of the lockout. I began by telling the crowd that the things that they are concerned about (war, death, money) are important issues. After all, the war has dramatically changed things in the United States as well as in places like Iraq and Afghanistan. Many people have died. Many billions of dollars have been spent. These kinds of things leave impressions on the world and, as inquisitive people, journalists are interested in those impressions. Again, let me state for the record that I am not, have not been, nor plan to be a reporter at the CBC. I then went on to talk about the lockout. I told the crowd that we are going into our seventh week and are tired of walking around the building at Prospect and Regent. I told them we just want to do our jobs. I told them I am concerned that CBC management is trying to turn CBC into the WallMart of broadcasting. I told them that we are fighting for real jobs and carreers. I told them to check out our website www.frederictonguild.blogspot.com. After speaking, I removed my "LOCKED OUT BY CBC MANAGEMENT" t-shirt and walked with the group to the Provincial Legislature. Did I do this as a sign of support on behalf of the CBC? No. Did I do this as a sign of support on behalf of the CMG Union? No. Did I do this as a curious individual on the way back to the market to get my car? YES. One of my "CBC'er" friends left us mid-march...to get into her car and go home. The other stayed with me. I was her drive home. Never once did any of us at any time take a position on the war as members of the CBC or CMG. There. I hope that clears some things up.
Are you with CBC Draken? It sure seems that way. Anyway, I suspected someone from CBC would wander by here at some point after Charles posted on their site. They're journalists so they're curious by nature. I'm a bit skeptical since they didn't put a name to the comments but they seem to have enough info to back it up so there's no reason not to believe that they're who they say they are.
I am impressed that the person recognized that participating could be interpreted as a bias (as I've been saying here all along). I'm still concerned that two casual employees who may be journalists (that wasn't clarified), although given Draken's earlier comment about a woman going to Rogers, that's probably her. Maybe in their mids they weren't taking an active role but if you're not carrying a recorder or tape recorder and marching in a protest, and everybody there knows you're with CBC, the preception can cause lots of problems. Obviously people there associated them all with the CBC, lock-out or not. I assume these folks are going back to work at CBC or at some media at some time.
To the CBC type who posted, thanks for the clarification. Although obviously I'm still concerned about the perception, particulalrly the attitude by many here that even if you did march in it as CBC reporters it would be okay, my only point all along has been that that's just ethically not right and it looks bad. Seems you agree about the preception issue and you're on that side, so I'm relieved.
Now we've gone from arguing the actual event to arguing against people's point of view. The idea that somebody who even only works contract at CBC (or another network) can never take part in any kind of issue demonstration just seems bizarrely fascist to me, but we can leave that as simply somebody's opinion.
More interesting was the comment about 'journalistic ethics' because the claim was that somehow these CBC people who take part in a civil demonstration are being dishonest because they were taught they shouldn't exercise their own civil rights in such a non-anonymous way. It also lent credence to the author's own view that they shouldn't be doing this.
However, the plain fact is that such a thing is NOT taught in a curriculum, and of course it only exists in the author's mind. Here's the link to the journalism courses at St.Thomas
"http://w3.stu.ca/stu/academic/departments/journalism/courses.aspx
You will note that there are NO courses in 'journalistic ethics', so Irvings must be happy. I think the author is confusing 'ethics' with 'objectivity', the latter is the responsibility of the editor. Which is why it may very well be true that most journalist's are 'liberal' (though I'd need some good hard stats before I buy it)-because in the end it is the editor and publisher who decide what gets into print or on the radio. They can cut huge parts or any part of the story, and of course 'objectivity'is also an issue simply in the types of stories that are covered. As I've said before, if you only read Irving press you literally are retarded as to what is actually going on in the world.
As for objectivity, I have to post this because I just saw it tonight on the Global news (waiting for a show) , where the announcer was announcing that the federal government was bringing forth a plan to provide aid to the poor to help pay for heating costs, and added "as usual, there are no plans on how soon they will be completed". To me, that "as usual" clearly shows a bias, why and in what way is this "as usual"? Even if some viewers thought this was 'usual' it strike me as quite biased as it serves no informative purpose.
"Global, if you think that is 'left wing' then you are seriously uneducated." Quote from a post above. This describes Spinks well and also retarded in his views. He went on and on about CBC reporters being at the rally without ever verifying the fact that they were there. He should at least apologize now.
Good catch on Global 12:36am and yes that's exactly the type of stuff I'm talking about. That is bias (pretty blatant at that) and it's unacceptable. We shouldn't put up with it and neither should newsrooms but they do because the thinking is by and large all the same in the newsroom so they don't have a problem with it. They should. My beef with bias, D is all media not just CBC. However CBC seems to be a little more blatant about it. Maybe that's just because of their size. However good catch on Global. It doesn't get more bias than that.
I'm disappinted to hear STU offers no courses on ethics. I'm hopeful it's at least discussed in some class or we're in for some crazy journalism in he coming years. As for liberal bias in journalism there have been several studies in the US which back it up but none that I know of in Canada. Although given Canada's left-leaning, it's probably safe to say the numbers are even higher here.
Draken, I hope you don't mean the CBC is the best news source right now. LOL. Sorry, this time I couldn't resist. Actually I think anyone can participate in whatever they want but sometimes there's a consequence and depending on what you do for a living, you have to be careful. My point with news crews is they're placing themselves in a precarious position if they actively participate in an issue they may end up covering for the news down the road. If these three merely showed up and no one there was aware they were with CBC and took part, who cares, because no one would know their association. But if it was so obvious that they were CBC, and given the comments here, IT WAS, they would have been wise to probably walk away or stay on the sidelines. Like I said it looks bad, because now you have people who were taking part saying the CBC was there and they support our cause. A former editor of, I believe the Charlottetown Guardian refused to join any club because he was concerned he might one day have to cover it. I don't think a news person has to go to that extreme but when it comes to controversial issues, if I were the journalism prof. I would tell my students to steer clear. For example, I sure wouldn't want to be pro-war and know the journalist interviewing me attended an-anti war demonstration. I would perceive at the very least the chance of the report being fair as unlikely.
To the CBC poster. I hope more CBC types drop in here to discuss the lockout. I recently checked out the CBC workers blog and it looks like more is getting discussed on Charles' Blog about the lockout and there are more visitors here. Maybe there's a story for CBC when the lockout ends about this site.
9:51 - call me what you want but NEVER use the word retarded. You have NO idea how hurtful that word is to those with mental disabilities. NEVER do that again.
It was used by 12:36 AM poster first. I was just quoting. However, I do understand the sensitivity of it and it was not used in that sense. It referred to your views only.
Spinks...
What you have against CBC? You did not give a single credible argument which shows that CBC is biased in its reporting. As a matter of fact it is the only safe bet to get some unbiased reporting.
As far as three worker, two former workers may be, being at the protest is perfectly o.k. There is absolutely nothing unprofessional about it. All the power to them. Rest is poppycock.
We at least have it narrowed down and that there is no such thing as 'journalistic ethics', certainly not as it pertains to civil rights. There are laws though, but they certainly don't say a reporter can't express their civil rights. So the CBC people aren't being unethical, we're down to "I just don't think it's a good idea". Which is fine, particularly for somebody who isn't actually involved in the issue.
On the daily show last night they showed two rallies, the first anti war had over 100,000 people, then there were 400 people at the 'pro war' rally the next day. Says a lot about the states, not the warmongers who attribute them as.
Anyway, so the idea is that if I were a reporter and I were anti-war, particularly if I were at the anti-war rally, I shouldn't cover the other. Now, we've since established that no such thing happened at CBC, when they weren't on strike I don't think I've EVER seen a CBC person at a demonstration. But in that context it makes sense. However, in the states you never even saw the story in the national media-THERE is the bias.
Finally, let's have some links, none of this "they've done studies". If Fox did the study I'd be suspect. The idea that Canada is 'more left' is clearly delusional, the states have far more democratic tools than we do, and their governments spend far more on social programs than Canada. If by 'left' you mean 'state controlled' then that has some validity, but I don't know anybody who defines 'left' that way.
In case you missed my article at Vive, New Brunswick's corporate income tax is not only the lowest in Canada, it is the lowest in NORTH AMERICA-lower even than every state. Canada's federal tax is now 10% lower than the US's. How exactly is that 'more left', lower tax rates are a 'right wing' or conservative policy, which the liberals have adopted.
PS:have you noticed how all the corporations are moving to NB because our tax rate is so low?
Finally, I'm not going to apologize for using the term 'retarded' to retard something means to stand in it's way, if YOU see it as derogatory toward special ability people then that's your prejudice,not mine. I work with special children and they aren't hurt by words, they are hurt by inflection-meaning it depends how you say it. I know of children who are hurt if you even call them special. As usual, if you are outside the box you don't know what's going on inside.
I don't know what a "professional protester" is, but it sounds vaguely like it was supposed to be bad toward Asaf. If so, then Charles should really be insulted because if Asaf is a Professional Protestor, then clearly Charles is the President of that particular union. If only there WERE a professional association of protestors then maybe something would get accomplished in this province instead of sinking lower into third world status.
No one called him retarded just that his views are retarded. No question about that. He is desperate to find something to get back at those we differ with him. Good luck, Spinks.
Too kind. Spinks and his views are retarded. You were right the first time.
I think a professional protester is someone who is so active on so many issues that he or she becomes known not for his or her issues, but just as someone who protests routinely. There are people who are known for protesting the seal hunt, the LNG tax deal, international trade deals, abortion, or whatever, and then there are people who protest on so many issues it's hard to knwop what they're realy about. To me, they give the impression that they think they're smarter than the rest of us, and that they "know better" than the general population and also experts in various fields. I don't know Asaf. My only impressions of him are based on his media appearances. Some of this is filtered by the mass media (mostly Irving papers), but every week I read his own words in a column in the Brunswickan. My impression is that he's sincere but extremely easily outraged. Doesn't mean he's right or wrong on any of his many issues (I agree with him on some, disagree on others), but I must say, I tend to write him off as unrepresentative.
As for the claim that NB is "third world", I have to wonder if people who say that have ever been to Africa. We have some genuine poverty and other hardship here, but the poorest NBer lives in luxury compared to most people who live in the real "third world".
Well guys, I didn't think it was possible but congratulations, you've finally broken this old bird. When even a moderate like Mike starts justifying slurs against those with mental disabilities as an attack at me simply because we disagree I know when to quit. That's my breaking point and you found it. Hopefully one day those who chose to make it personal will realize that you don't need to attack someone because you don't agree with them, and because they disagree with you doesn't make them a covert government operative. I think Charles is doing a great job here and wish him the best. Good luck, Charles. To the rest, you have what you've asked for. Congrats.
Note that the phrase was "if you only read Irving press you literally are retarded as to what is actually going on in the world." I personally don't know ANYONE who only gets their information from only Irving and the remarks never even mentioned Spinks. Irving has almost no international content unless it was somebody getting killed somewhere. Just as when somebody holds you back from crossing the street you say they are 'retarding your progress'. Look it up in the dictionary, words aren't simply discarded because people use it badly. I have almost never heard anybody use it in reference to a special needs person in the past decade, but perhaps I just don't know enough lousy people. So don't lay that one at my feet. Although personally I'm surprised Spinks lasted here this long with the vitriol that is sometimes spouted.
As for the third world remark, it is indeed quite accurate and I suggest you get out and SEE how people in poverty live in NB. Charles did a few blogs a while ago and I HAVE been to Africa and the idea that MOST live in poverty far worse than New Brunswickers is completely false. For one thing, Africans never have to face as brutal winters as we do, and I know plenty of New Brunswicker's who simply have to freeze through them.
I know plenty of New Brunswickers who eat very poorly because they can't afford better and who live in hovels-or outside. Again, talk to Charles and no doubt he'd give you a tour. That AIDS is epidemic and famine occurs in places in Africa is quite true, but that isn't the only definition of 'third world'. Go to the United Nations website, when they ranked the countries they told Canada that per capita we do well but if we were judged by the conditions of natives and the poor we WOULD be a third world country. Even (or especially) third world countries have rich people, they usually own the resources. You can't judge economics simply by counting how many Toyota Corolla's you see on the road. People who live in poverty in New Brunswick don't live in LUXURY compared to ANYBODY.
As for Asaf, I confess I don't really understand the comments about him, perhaps it is that he is too 'public' and doesn't know his place. When a guy stands up and says 'we're protesting against the war in Iraq', I don't tend to judge what he is saying based on who he is, I'm at the demonstration because I am against the war in Iraq. If it happens to be the same guy at an anti-poverty event I don't care so long as they are talking about anti-poverty initiatives.
There's a lot of poverty and a lot of injustice in the world, I have no doubt that Asaf MAY have a temper, personally I don't care, just as Charles MAY have a temper, I really don't care. I look at what they are saying and doing and decide whether I want to be part of it. I certainly don't begrudge Asaf, just as I don't Charles, who goes to far more events than Asaf, but I don't consider Charles a 'professional protestor'. Somehow the term seems to be used to degrade somebody and imply they are doing something wrong. Keep in mind though that it's like comedians, they say a good comedian is an 'angry' comedian. I suspect it's also true of activists, I mean even Bruce Cockburn wrote a song called "If I had a Rocket Launcher" that finishes ..."some son of a bitch would die". If you are familiar with Mr. Cockburn he has all kinds of personality quirks, but violent isn't one of them.
Spinks is forgetting how ignorant he has been towards others. He has repeatedly attacked minorities including our current
Governor General. He has a sensitivity of a door-knob.
He is terribly hypocritical. On the one hand he jumps on CBC after a little blurb that CBC reporters were at an anti-war rally. He never confirmed the facts. Facts were totally different. On the other hand he says he is not sure Lord lied to Charles Leblanc or Lord's ministers lied to Tim Smith after reading their posts for months. His views generally belong to ancient times and are full of bigotry. His attacks on others are just facts however when others present facts then those becomes attacks on him or he is being unfairly judged. The man is full of conflicts. He does not recognize any of his problems. Good luck man but look before you jump to conclusions and have little thicker skin.
Asaf is an extraordinary individual. He gives too much of himself. I do not understand attacks on him. Again may be he goes against conservative views. So who is more intolerant here?
I've never begrudged his opinion, and Spinks had pretty thick skin for the comments he got. However, I never really saw too many 'insults'. As was mentioned, when 'retarded' was mentioned it was not in reference to Spinks and then he seemed to kind of lose it. Perhaps he knew somebody with special needs who was called it, but that's just life.
Personally, while not only on this site, I've been called boorish, pompous, an idiot, a jerk, condescending, patronizing and more that I can't remember, and those were DIRECT insults at me (and hell, they're probably true). While I often see a lot of antagonism toward Spinks, I'm somewhat surprised at the restraint here. There's real loathing here for the Premier that's hard to get through to have a political discussion, and I've always enjoyed the debate, but it also took up too much of my time, maybe now I'll get something accomplished! But it's always sad to see people upset, but I honestly can't say that I saw anything in that dialogue that wasn't repeated elsewhere over the months.
I appreciate what draken is saying but the reality is quite opposite. It is Spinks who tried to censor rest of us by telling us not to say this and that. He quite often indicated that his was the last word and there is no need for further discussion. Then he would constantly pat his back that how he was enlightening us all. All these things got people upset but I think impoliteness came from his side. Every so often there would be an anonymous post, when Spinks could not defend his views, name calling those who were questioning Spinks' views. It sounded like Spinks who went back and forth being Spinks and then anonymous. I think he will be back may be as anonymous. If not then R.I.P.
Spinks bashing was fun. His strange ideas did provide entertainment at times.
In my opinion, Spinks did liven up the site but some people don't like to debate so therefore they lower themselves to name calling!!!!
Hey! Spinks started name-calling. Do you read posts?
Post a Comment