[eureka]

I would not call that an insinuation - at least not a pejorative one. It rather mildly states what seems obvious so far. That this does not look like an isolated case.

I hope it turns out to be isolated. Much as I despise Harper and his faux conservative cabal, I don't want to see electioneering in this country degraded to that extent.

[dino_bobba_renno]

andyt andyt:

Can you give me a link where the CBC said 31,000 were robbed of their vote and that Harper orchestrated it. (Maybe a lot to ask, but I'm skeptical here.)

Ok Andy, I looked up a few old episodes of the National. I can’t link to them so I'm not able to post them but I’ll give you some quotes. Now remember Andy, how you ask a question, how you edit and select the quotes you air, which facts your report on and more importantly which facts you don’t report all play into how the media portrays a story.

$1:

What was behind it was a concerted and very organized effort to supress the vote

Quoting Frank Valeriote
Robocall Controversy Feb 23

$1:

“The scandal involving misleading phone calls during the last election is widening. It now appears that many more ridings were targeted than originally thought in all most every corner of Canada”

Oh my

$1:

“But “something happened to the benefit of the Conservative campaign. In order for it to happen they had to have money, they had to have organization, and they had to have voter lists” all of which tends to point to something more than a bunch of local rouge operations of which the national party was totally unaware of”

New Robocall Accusations Feb 25

$1:

"And I started by asking him if in light of the oppositions claims now of more than 30 targeted ridings his party is still arguing there was no co-ordinated campaign to mislead voters."

Leslie MacKinnon dirrecting a question at Dean Del Mastro
*I really like that one. How in the hell do you answer a prejudicial question like that without looking bad?
Robocall Controversy Feb 26

$1:

“This story isn’t going away, in fact it’s likely to grow”

Robocall Scandal Feb 26

$1:

"I have over 200 emails in my inbox today with stories of curious, or .. you know, allegations of wrong doing in the last election”

Quoting Pat Martin
More Robocall Complaints Surface Feb 27
*Pat makes it out like there are hundreds of complaints pouring in every day but of course the CBC makes no mention that none of those are substantiated.

$1:

Fresh allegations coming in every day

Again, no mention that any of those where substantiated.



And here’s my favorite Andy. This was Mansbridge during an “At Issue” panel. All the panel member were being very level headed during the course of the panel but Mansbridge kept harping at them trying to up the stakes on the story. This one is also for you Eureka, tell me how you interpret this comment.

$1:

When you say there’s no evidence beyond Guelph, how do you define evidence, I mean there are thousands of people reporting stuff now

At Issue Panel the National Mar 1.

These are just a few excepts from the National. It doesn’t even include the regular CBC reporting. I don’t know about you Andy but it sure looks to me like the CBC is trying to make more out of the story than what there really is and definitely more than what can be proven.

You can watch all the episodes at:
http://www.cbc.ca/video/#/News/TV_Shows/The_National
I've put the date and the title of each piece below the quotes

[eureka]

How I see it, dino, is that you are citing political opponents giving their opinions. Those were offset by the statements of Conservative spokesmen. In fact, the conservative spokesman 9 the initial front) was very forthright in his denials and in trying to shift the blame without any evidence whatsoever.

As for Mansbridge's question, it is his job to do that and it is the job of those questioned to respond - as they did. There were thousands of people "reporting stuff." It was easy enough to show the weakness of that (so far) as evidence. As it has been.

But that has to come out. It would be irresponsible of any media outlet not to have that discussed in public.

[dino_bobba_renno]

eureka eureka:

How I see it, dino, is that you are citing political opponents giving their opinions. Those were offset by the statements of Conservative spokesmen. In fact, the conservative spokesman 9 the initial front) was very forthright in his denials and in trying to shift the blame without any evidence whatsoever.

As for Mansbridge's question, it is his job to do that and it is the job of those questioned to respond - as they did. There were thousands of people "reporting stuff." It was easy enough to show the weakness of that (so far) as evidence. As it has been.

But that has to come out. It would be irresponsible of any media outlet not to have that discussed in public.

Only two of those are dirrect quotes from the opposition Eureka, one is a mixed quote with commentary provided by Terry Milewski. The rest are dirrect comments by CBC reporters.

[eureka]

I would say much the same to those, dino. It would be irresponsible not to report those things. They can be answered: and should be answered.

[andyt]

wow, a discussion involving Eureka and nobody's hurling insults. It can be done.

Dino - i don't doubt that many reporters are biased against the conservatives, just as there are some that are clearly more right wing. And, what you see as biased reporting I might see more as just putting the info out there. I admit I haven't watched the CBC, but I would doubt they're so far off what everybody else is reporting. The biggest bias I've read about is supposedly Sun media more or less having convicted the Guelph staffer who resigned, on the basis of "unnamed conservative sources" But I've only read about that in other media who will have their own bias against Sun Media. But it sure sounds like the conservatives are trying to set up a scape goat. I guess we'll just have to let Elections Canada do it's thing and hope the finding come out before next election. Found it funny tho, for instance, that the conservatives challenged the Libs to release their phone records, but wouldn't release their own.

[OnTheIce]

eureka eureka:

I would say much the same to those, dino. It would be irresponsible not to report those things. They can be answered: and should be answered.

Report facts.

Report facts without editorial spin.

Asking questions with a particular slant or with generalizations isn't reporting the news or asking tough questions, it's a way of asking a question while slamming particular person or party.

This is why I don't watch SUN News, CBC or CTV National. Report to me the news, report to me the facts. I don't give a shit about your opinion, I'm able to form my own.

[Bruce_E_T]

dino_bobba_renno dino_bobba_renno:

Just curious, since you claim that you don’t even watch the CBC how do you find yourself in a position defending them?

andyt andyt:

Last point of yours is a fair one. But I used to watch them, still listen to a bit of radio, and I think the right wing attack on the CBC is over the top.

I listen to Radio 1 quite a lot although I have no exposure to the TV side. I think their approach is balanced though I would really prefer the term bi-polar.
Thing is that the vast majority of their shows are completely non-political. I can't really believe that any significant number of people are going to be swayed by the measly amount of material they put on the air.

Via CBC Radio news the number of complaints received seems now to be 700 rather than 30,000 first reported,

[eureka]

I think, OTI, that what you say is not uncommon. What is uncommon, though, is the person who can make up his mind free from prejudice over complex matters on which he may have no knowledge of the legal standing; or of precedent and process.

To understand, requires listening to all points of view about an affair and making up one's mind then. Facts have an uncomfortable way of being only surface manifestations.

[EyeBrock]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

eureka eureka:

I would say much the same to those, dino. It would be irresponsible not to report those things. They can be answered: and should be answered.

Report facts.

Report facts without editorial spin.

Asking questions with a particular slant or with generalizations isn't reporting the news or asking tough questions, it's a way of asking a question while slamming particular person or party.

This is why I don't watch SUN News, CBC or CTV National. Report to me the news, report to me the facts. I don't give a shit about your opinion, I'm able to form my own.

Well said.

[dino_bobba_renno]

andyt andyt:

wow, a discussion involving Eureka and nobody's hurling insults. It can be done.

Dino - i don't doubt that many reporters are biased against the conservatives, just as there are some that are clearly more right wing. And, what you see as biased reporting I might see more as just putting the info out there. I admit I haven't watched the CBC, but I would doubt they're so far off what everybody else is reporting. The biggest bias I've read about is supposedly Sun media more or less having convicted the Guelph staffer who resigned, on the basis of "unnamed conservative sources" But I've only read about that in other media who will have their own bias against Sun Media. But it sure sounds like the conservatives are trying to set up a scape goat. I guess we'll just have to let Elections Canada do it's thing and hope the finding come out before next election. Found it funny tho, for instance, that the conservatives challenged the Libs to release their phone records, but wouldn't release their own.

Well, on the whole Michael Sona thing I think it’s a case of the Conservatives running scared and trying to cover their asses. As for the Sun, well it’s the Sun. I don’t know what else to say, everyone knows they lean to the right and the Sun it self makes no secrete of that fact.

On interesting thing I’ll note here though is that McGregor of the Ottawa Citizen, the fellow who broke the story (or at least that’s my understanding) had mentioned in his original articles that the investigation into the Robocalls was all ready ongoing when he came across it and I believe Michael Sona was all ready being looked at at that point (I could be wong about the latter part).

I’ll admit that I think every reporter out there wil be bias in some respect to some degree or another but here’s my problem with the CBC. Canada is composed of numerous regions all of which have their own beliefs and values. The West tends to be a bit more conservative than the East. We as a country all ready struggle with regional tensions from time to time. To have a state broadcaster that feeds into those tensions in any manner that is either or perceived is not acceptable. The state broadcaster should be a unifying force within this country, one that represents the views and values of all Canadians and to date I don’t believe the CBC has done a very good job of that. The CBC has the capabilities and the means by which they can help unite all Canadians. They could be the greatest driving force in lessen regional tensions by representing the differing points of views between the provinces in a manner which is informative and insightful so that others can better understand why certain parts of the country feel a certain way. But rather than do that they seem more content to play off of regional tensions for what ever reason.

Take the oilsand for instance. How many positive stories have you seen on the CBC about its development? How many negative? Rather than playing off of “the oilsands are the worst thing to happen to Canada” card why can’t they do a story on what the industry is doing off set the negative impacts or why Albertans feel the oilsands are so important. They can do a piece on opposing views as well but to date I only see in large part one side of the issue being represented by the CBC. There was a Royal Commission on the sands a few years back which dispelled many of the myths such as higher cancer rates down stream of the sands but not one word on that, why?

News organizations will all ways be bias, in some cases such as the Sun we even expect them to be but the state broadcaster, the “Canadian Broadcasting Corporation” needs to hold itself to a higher standard than that. Even if they don’t eliminate bias they should at the very least should make more of an effort to balance themselves in the interest of our country as a whole.

*Thats my little rant for the day, I'm done now

[andyt]

Can't actually disagree with that at all. CBC should set the standard. Where there will always be disagreement tho, is how far they have deviated from that standard. To one person it's fair and balanced, to another it's Fox News.

[eureka]

I disagree with it completely. There have been far too many stories on the CBC extolling the virtues of the oil sands, for one of dino's examples. Very few about the negatives. I have even written to CBC a couple of times about its coverage of that without any balancing criticism. That is one area where it reflects the political debate rather than the scientific and social

And it most certainly did give coverage to the findings of no harm, no foul, on the cancer report. In spite of there being other non reported saying that the findings are biased.

The CBC does an extraordinary job of balancing the regions. What it does not do is pander to each region's prejudices. That is what balance is. Not saying in one region what most in that region want to hear. It does this in spite of threats from the Right Wing governments and the cutting of funding. Since the CPC has been in power, it lives with the daily threats of having its funding removed entirely and becoming just another emissary of business.

That is what I was referring to in an earlier post about the traditional function of the Press; about the origin of "Free Speech." There is no need for a Press if all it does is crosswords, comics and obituaries.

The function of a Free Press is to hold government to account. It is the Fourth Estate in order to give voice to the Third Estate and empower that voice.

The media in Canada, and elsewhere, has failed badly in recent times and it is that that has brought us to the state we are in where democracy itself is threaten and the First and Second Estates are gaining power and wealth at the expense of the Third Estate.

We need more editorialising, not less.. We need it on the front pages and not tucked away where the majority of the Third Estate do not get to.

[andyt]

We do need to keep reporting and editorializing separate and make sure we clearly identify editorializing. That's what the editorial page is for, so I don't agree with you there.

What we also need tho is more investigative journalism. Some people will always see that as biased because their particular ox is being gored. But reporting also needs to be balanced - and often reporters start taking sides in a story and only reporting one side. With the oil sands, for instance, that might go either way. One guy will do a progress marches on, ain't the oilsands wonderful type story, the next a story focused on the environment and how the oilsands are our doom. The oilsands wonderful guy should be also reporting on the environmental costs, the doom guy about how many people have jobs because of them to bring in some balance.

[FieryVulpine]

Begging the question again: "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"

Who is the CBC accountable to?