babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


  
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » current events   » canadian politics   » Fraser Freedom Fighters

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Fraser Freedom Fighters
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 03 November 2001 08:02 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Ha! I laughed when I saw the title to Dalton Camp's column, Fraser Freedom Fighters are a Tad Upset. (Go to the bottom of the columnists page and you'll find it - of course the Toronto Star URL is WAY too long).

It seems that the Fraser Institute is unhappy because a left-wing point of view managed to squeak through the mainstream press during the Town Hall meeting aired on the CBC during that first week after the attacks.

[ November 03, 2001: Message edited by: Michelle ]


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214

posted 03 November 2001 08:27 AM      Profile for Tommy_Paine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
A friend of mine calls him "Komrade Kamp". Old Dalton's been remarkably thoughtful for a Tory. The right wing must hate him.

It's typical of the right to be in favour of democracy and liberty as long as it is in agreement with their ideas.

They show their true anti-liberty colours though, when they sense themselves in the minority.


From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Markbo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 124

posted 03 November 2001 09:54 AM      Profile for Markbo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Two things

quote:
Fraser complained that the CBC "is a government-owned, government supported organization ... and we cannot have government-supported bias."

The charge is, of course, untrue. The CBC is a publicly owned organization and it is remarkable to learn the Fraser Institute does not know the difference


I don't really know the difference either. If the CBC is publicly owned. Can I sell my share? How can he say the charge that it is government supported is untrue. How much money does the government give the CBC each year.

quote:
A reader has asked what I would do (other than criticize the war). There is an ancient and honourable advisory to doctors: First, do no harm. I would have followed that.

Thats great, another statement of what he would not do. Another lefty critisizing without offering a realistic alternative. Since he wants to compare policy to doctoring, even doctors would amputate a foot to save a life.

[ November 03, 2001: Message edited by: Markbo ]


From: Windsor | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 03 November 2001 10:16 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
There are a million other threads about whether the left has offered any solutions to the problem, and whether military action is justified. Let's keep this thread for talking about whether the Fraser Institute has a point or not when they say that CBC shouldn't be airing left-wing viewpoints unless the majority of Canadians agree with them.

Personally, I like the idea of minority opinions being heard. That's one of the good things about having a publicly funded broadcaster - all the minority opinions that the commercial broadcasters feel are too risky to air at least get some play on CBC.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Markbo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 124

posted 03 November 2001 10:24 AM      Profile for Markbo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
No problem, but the Fraser charge according to Camp was that the minority view was represented as the majority view. How is that balanced reporting.

Also Camp made the charge that the Fraser institute stated an untruth when they said the CBC was government owned and supported. I think Camp's implication that it is not is an untrue.


From: Windsor | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Markbo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 124

posted 03 November 2001 10:27 AM      Profile for Markbo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Does anybody have a link to what the Fraser institute actually said, I didn't see anything on their website. That would be helpful if you wanted to discuss their position.
From: Windsor | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Jake
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 390

posted 03 November 2001 11:34 AM      Profile for Jake     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
He is so predictable; can anyone else be depended upon to jump in and confuse things quicker than Markbo?

Jake


From: the recycling bin | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 03 November 2001 12:18 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Markbo, Camp is making the classic distinction between the public (all citizens) and the government in its political manifestation -- more or less the distinction between state and government.

The CBC is not supposed to be under the political direction of the governing party of the moment. Governments of course make intensely political decisions about how much money to hand over to the CBC -- but in theory, anyway, they are not supposed to be influencing what's broadcast.

This distinction, btw, is essential to the structure and survival of a democracy. I have a lengthy lecture on the subject.

[ November 03, 2001: Message edited by: skdadl ]


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
JCL
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1387

posted 03 November 2001 03:52 PM      Profile for JCL     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
He is so predictable; can anyone else be depended upon to jump in and confuse things quicker than Markbo?
Jake

And where is your proof?


From: Winnipeg. 35 days to Christmas yet no snow here. | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
JCL
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1387

posted 03 November 2001 03:55 PM      Profile for JCL     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I've never been comfortable with the government owning CBC. During the last election, it was so pro-Liberals, when they farted or sneezed they said "Vote for the Liberals." But then again, with a government owned network, they sure show a lot of dull programming. Only thing I really watch on CBC is Hockey Night in Canada, CFL football and the Olympics and that's it.
From: Winnipeg. 35 days to Christmas yet no snow here. | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Markbo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 124

posted 03 November 2001 03:57 PM      Profile for Markbo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:

Markbo, Camp is making the classic distinction between the public (all citizens) and the government in its political manifestation -- more or less the distinction between state and government.
The CBC is not supposed to be under the political direction of the governing party of the moment.

The Fraser institute never said it was Liberal owned. It said it was government owned.

Jake what am I confusing, I am just pointing out facts that were used in the title of the thread. I see no difference in saying something is government owned or it is publicly owned. So far no one has said any difference. It is Dalton Camp who is trying to confuse the issues. Or maybe it is he, himself who is confused.


From: Windsor | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 03 November 2001 04:02 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
No, Markbo, you are confused. Separation of state and government -- look it up.
From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 03 November 2001 04:28 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Markbo, I'm sorry -- I was a bit rushed there, and also I forgot that you run on American models, which are anomalies on this turf.

In classic democratic theory, and in the structures of all modern democracies except the U.S., the separation of state and government is manifest in two separate "heads," a president (state) and a premier (gov't) in a republic, the queen (state) and a premier (gov't) in a constitutional monarchy. The Americans gave themselves a whole passle of problems by making their prez both head of state and head of gov't, but that's not our problem. (It does make imperialism a little more predictable ...)

The head of state is the symbol of the sovereignty of the people. Between her and you, there are no intermediaries (this is in theory, mind). Your relationship with the queen is direct: it's you and her, ain't nobody gonna mess with that. Thus: state = public. The people, all the people, all the time. Slot CBC in here.

Government in this context means politics. The head of gov't in theory is supposed to be paying attention to all the people too, but ... As far as the CBC goes, he's just supposed to be doling out our money efficiently. Again, this is all in theory ...


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
agent007
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1189

posted 03 November 2001 05:12 PM      Profile for agent007     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The Americans gave themselves a whole passle of problems...

As Google would say, did you mean passel?

(Forgot the emoticon.)

[ November 03, 2001: Message edited by: relogged ]


From: Niagara Falls ON | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 03 November 2001 05:28 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Thank you for the correction, relogged.
From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Debra
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 117

posted 03 November 2001 05:32 PM      Profile for Debra   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Geez I thought babble didn't have spell check.
From: The only difference between graffiti & philosophy is the word fuck... | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Albert R. Calleros
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 432

posted 03 November 2001 06:43 PM      Profile for Albert R. Calleros     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It's high time that all progressive Canadians declare open season on the Fraser and the C. D. Howe Institutes. These two "think tanks" are not even "truly" Conservative in the classical sense.
Although I hail from the States, I am a dyed-in-the-wool Canadian at heart. The political system of the United States is a joke. The United States IS NOT a democracy, it IS a plutocracy (government by, of, and for the wealthy).

[ November 05, 2001: Message edited by: Albert R. Calleros ]


From: Davis, CA, USA | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Markbo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 124

posted 03 November 2001 10:23 PM      Profile for Markbo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Thanks skdadle, I wasn't really sure how Camp was defining public owned and supported vs. Govt owned and supported.

So, without agreeing with them, your saying that if the fraser institute actually complained:

that the CBC "is a state-owned, state supported organization ... and we cannot have government-supported bias."

It would at least not have been an "untruth"

For the sake of the discussion then, can we say that this is what the Fraser institute meant.

[ November 03, 2001: Message edited by: Markbo ]


From: Windsor | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
meades
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 625

posted 04 November 2001 01:51 AM      Profile for meades     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
How is the CBC holding up the government's line by allowing free speech in the town hall forums?

Last time I checked, the government was all gung ho about the war and pushing through omnibus bills that may limit dissent.

JCL- What do you think Global and CTV were doing? Don't forget, the family that owns canwest global are BIG liberal supporters and donors. The only thing NEAR anti-liberal sentiment on Global was an interview with Brian Tobin, where the interviewer treated him like "a dumb newfie".

Markbo- I don't even think that's relavent. THe government is clearly not listening to the left by any means, yet the Fraser Institute in all it's paranoia, basically compared the CBC to something like the Serbian broadcasting system (what's it called?) that just pumped out government lines during the Milosevic reign. They're clearly a bunch of nut balls (The Fraser Institute, I mean), which I believe was the point of the Camp article.

Also if the Fraser Institute meant it in that respect (which I believe they didn't) then I guess that the statement would more or less acceptable, though it's intent, IMHO, is clearly, well just nutty.


From: Sault Ste. Marie | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 04 November 2001 09:01 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think meades has put his finger on the problem of trying to translate the FI position into correct terms: the problem is, they were mistaken, so we can't make their position make sense -- we just have to reject it.

Let's look again at the actual Fraser quote (as much as we have):

quote:
Fraser complained that the CBC "is a government-owned, government-supported organization ... and we cannot have government-supported bias."

What he/it means there, written out a little more fully, is "we cannot have the government supporting a biased position" -- or "we don't want the government to allow the CBC to air biased views."

First of all, in my view, we cannot allow the government to "allow" -- or disallow -- anything on the CBC. And secondly, we should not be voting for people who don't grasp this basic principle.

Second, I think it's fair to meditate on where we expect the standards a publicly owned broadcaster is supposed to live up to to come from. In very broad terms, they were set out when, yes, the government created the CBC and gave it its (charter? what is the doc called?) -- obviously, the complete separation of government from its creations is an idealization, but one that is always worth trying to live up to.

So the government does have some responsibility for what's going on at the CBC, but it's supposed to be "arm's length." We're supposed to trust our elected reps, however hopelessly political they normally are, to use "objective" standards when, eg, they appoint the senior execs of the CBC. After that, though, it's up to those people to be living up to best standards -- broadcasting and, I suppose, administrative -- in running the place. And one of the "best" broadcasting standards in a democracy is, of course, to make sure that all voices are heard, or at least represented ... NOT according to their political weight, but just because they're there.

In truth, everyone at the CBC, like most middle-class North Americans everywhere, has already internalized all kinds of middle-class censorship systems. Some of these are just practical, the kinds of editorial standards and judgements of editorial "character" that, eg, judym is making all the time for this site. But some of them are political ... and some are just silly, prissy -- but we all know that, don't we?

(And of course the PMO is mucking about with things as much as it can. On the evidence quoted above, the Alliance would be even worse. )

[ November 04, 2001: Message edited by: skdadl ]


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Markbo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 124

posted 04 November 2001 11:19 AM      Profile for Markbo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Actually, I don't have a problem with the CBC coverage, I think the Fraser institute is throwing up a red herring. They simply want to see the CBC ended, and would use any means to justify it. The reporting may be a bit left wing, don't they have an alliance with the Toronto Star. When the Toronto Star goes bankrupt they'll be more pressure for socialists to hijack the CBC further left.
But at that point it will be so blatant that even the liberals will put an end to it.

I just really have a problem with Dalton Camp's poor perception of reality. My first post pointed this out.

I also have a problem with the government owning a business that competes with other businesses. Shoveling all that money into that business when there are more important priorities. WOuld anybody have a problem with cancelling all funds directed to the CBC if that money was guaranteed as an increase to build social housing?

quote:

We're supposed to trust our elected reps, however hopelessly political they normally are, to use "objective" standards when, eg, they appoint the senior execs of the CBC

Since no government of any stripe has ever been trustworthy of being "objective" when appointing senior executives of any bureaucracy, I reject that statement outright. It goes to show why a state run business actually becomes a government run business.

Unless of course meades you have no problem with any of the people Harris appoints as senior executives.

[ November 04, 2001: Message edited by: Markbo ]


From: Windsor | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
redshift
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1675

posted 04 November 2001 12:04 PM      Profile for redshift     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
skdadl having furnished so well a defining line between government and state, and consensus being reached that the CBC is a state run rather than a government run enterprise, why do we need it , rather than rely on the private sector to deliver us into the realms of fantasy.
J.J. Rousseau provides us with a role for the fifth estate which is relevant, "The general will is always right, but the judgement that guides it is not always enlightened. It must be made to see objects as they are, sometimes as they ought to appear; it must be shown the good path that it is seeking , and guarded from the seduction of private interest." The Social Contract(1762).
I doubt that even the most pro-business of us could argue for the unrestrained persuasive coersion of big business with no counter-balancing,(however weak) input from the State.

From: cranbrook,bc | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 04 November 2001 12:23 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Agree. Markbo, I can't answer your entire post just now, but notice that all democratic constitutions recognize that the press is not a "business" exactly like the others -- freedom of the press is always one of the irreducible founding principles. And that's a principle we were supposed to have learned from a whole line of wonderful C17-C18 thinkers, J-J Rousseau a flower of the tradition indeed, redshift.

Unfortunately, many of the owners of our "presses" seem not quite to grasp the principle -- witness NBC, where the News dept is directed by the Entertainment division, which in turns obeys only the accountants at General Electric.

At least some centre-liberal governments of the C20 recognized the value of news organizations that did not have to respond to purely market concerns -- hence the BBC and CBC. The independence of the BBC is now so deeply embedded in British culture that it's hard to imagine the people allowing it to be dismantled ... I think that is not so true here, and the assault from the right on the CBC is obviously under way.

The CBC should certainly not be competing for advertising dollars at all -- it should carry no ads at all.

[ November 04, 2001: Message edited by: skdadl ]


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
agent007
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1189

posted 04 November 2001 12:46 PM      Profile for agent007     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The CBC should certainly not be competing for advertising dollars at all -- it should carry no ads at all.

Absolutely right, skdadl...
BUT (there's got to be a "but" even in absolutes) how do we answer the long-suffering taxpayers?
(You know the ones... "Hey, that's MY tax-dollar...")

From: Niagara Falls ON | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
clockwork
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 690

posted 05 November 2001 07:53 AM      Profile for clockwork     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
A quick search produced these quotes about the Fraser Institute, biases or public media support. Talk about a kettle calling the pot black:

quote:
[The Fraser Institute’s] own media watching group which produces On Balance uses “content analysis” to determine how balanced or unbalanced they believe the news coverage to be. Interestingly enough, they found that environmentalists are quoted twice as often as scientists. Presumably there are no scientists who can be considered environmentalists. They also claimed that media coverage [CBC TV news and the Globe and Mail] was imbalanced against the FTA. In this study, On Balance excluded both the Globe and Mail’s Report on Business, and its editorials. These constituted some of the most positive coverage of the FTA in the country at the time, as Lorne Slotnick, a former Globe & Mail labour reporter attests: “At the Globe there was an outright effective ban on stories that made the free trade deal look bad, reporters were told and were subtly made to feel that stories that made the free trade deal look bad were not welcome in The Globe and Mail.”
http://www.peak.sfu.ca/the-peak/95-2/issue13/fraser8.html

quote:
In July 1996, two months after a narrow provincial election victory by the B.C. New Democrats, a Fraser Institute National Media Archive (NMA) study declared that television coverage during the election campaign had been more negative to the provincial Liberals than to the New Democrats. The study purported to show that the Liberals were criticized more frequently than other parties and that the NDP received more attention than the Liberals on economic issues.
It was a curious study, because the actual statistics contained in the study (as opposed to the interpretation given them by the Fraser Institute) directly contradicted the claim that the media were biased against the Liberals.
http://www.cariboo.bc.ca/tt/faculty/dcharbon/forum/fraser.htm

quote:
"Their studies suggest that media coverage is hostile to business," he adds, "but two of our studies covered the same ground as previous Fraser Institute research on media coverage of bank profits and new technology. We found that the coverage was not hostile to business."
http://newswatch.cprost.sfu.ca/studies/97release.html

quote:
In Britain, for instance, television broadcasters are limited to 15 per cent of the national audience. Sweden has a long-standing press subsidy scheme, providing public financing for a broad range of newspapers, which are not supported by private corporate advertisers. Germany's tough anti-trust legislation prevents any one individual or corporation from forming a media monopoly in any market. Since 1881, the readers of France's press have enjoyed a right of reply to inaccurate or misleading information -- in Canada, this "privilege" is left solely to the discretion of editors.
http://newswatch.cprost.sfu.ca/monitor/issue3.html

quote:
The Fraser Institute, a conservative British Columbia think tank, recently issued a press release announcing the tobacco industry's latest vanity publication "Passive Smoke: The EPA's Betrayal of Science and Policy," by Gio Gori and John Luik. The release gave the academic credentials of professors Gori and Luik but failed to mention their long term ties to the tobacco industry.
http://www.no-smoke.org/fraser.html

quote:
The Fraser Institute used narrow and sometimes distorted information to make those claims. Yes, point source industrial water pollution to the Great Lakes and pollution from sewage treatment plants have been dramatically reduced. But pollution to groundwater and drinking water supplies from a growing number of concentrated animal feed operations (CAFO's) have been growing exponentially. The worst water pollution disaster in Canada's history occurred last year in Walkerton, Ontario from e.coli generated by animal feces. Quebec recently issued a boil-water order to 90 towns in the Province with animal bacterial contamination.
http://www.inetafrica.co.za/African%20Venture/042 001%20-%20Fraser%20Institute%20Says%20Climate%20Change%20Doesn't%20Exist.htm

quote:
Simon Fraser University communication professor Bob Hackett disputes the "spin" that the Fraser Institute has placed on its study of television coverage of the recent B.C. election campaign.
"The institute serves the business community well, along with those who believe that the free market can solve all public policy problems," he says. "This study points out the real need for other public policy and media research think tanks to represent other points of view."
http://www.sfu.ca/mediapr/Releases/News/1996/july96/Media.html

[ November 05, 2001: Message edited by: clockwork ]


From: Pokaroo! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Markbo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 124

posted 05 November 2001 10:32 AM      Profile for Markbo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Why don't we abolish the Fraser institute, C.D. Howe institute, balanced by the CCPA and OCAP.

It would be nice to stop hearing bullshit from all sides.


From: Windsor | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
redshift
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1675

posted 05 November 2001 01:14 PM      Profile for redshift     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
TURN OFF YOUR BOX, ITS A NICE DAY OUTSIDE.
From: cranbrook,bc | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 05 November 2001 01:14 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I don't want to abolish any of them. I just want to be free to express my opinion when I think they're full of shit without being accused of wanting to "censor" them.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
vaudree
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1331

posted 05 November 2001 05:26 PM      Profile for vaudree     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
OK - what is the difference?

quote:
Fraser complained that the CBC "is a government-owned, government supported organization ... and we cannot have government-supported bias."

The charge is, of course, untrue. The CBC is a publicly owned organization and it is remarkable to learn the Fraser Institute does not know the difference.


Are crown-corportations government owned or owned by the public? Are governments government owned or owned by the public?


From: Just outside St. Boniface | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
JCL
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1387

posted 05 November 2001 06:41 PM      Profile for JCL     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
redshift - You're right. It's a beautiful day in Winnipeg. 17C. And it's November.

I don't care less if the CCPA & OCAP is around or not. Makes little difference to me what they say. They have a right to say what they want. And I have a right not to read them or listen to what I percieve as pie in the sky theories from them. Just as people have a right not to read or listen to whatever theories the Howe & Fraser institute says that they consider pie in the sky theories.

And as for CBC, for all the public money that is sunk into that company that eats out of the government trough, we sure get a lot of what comes out of the animal at the trough. Shit programming.


From: Winnipeg. 35 days to Christmas yet no snow here. | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
meades
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 625

posted 07 November 2001 12:27 AM      Profile for meades     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Shit programming.

You mean just because the CBC doesn't give every person who ever made a punchline a sitcom, their programming is "shit"?

Do you like This Hour has 22 Minutes? Royal Canadian Air Farce? Comics? Opening Night? Canada: A People's History? CBC Morning/Canada Now/The National? Da Vinci's Inquest? The Fifth Estate? ECMA's? Foriegn Objects? Just for Laughs? Life & Times? Made In Canada? Mr. Dressup? Market Place? Nature of Things? North of '60? On the Road Again? The Red Green Show? Venture? Witness? Are all these "shit" programs?

Anyway, back to an old issue= CBC and the government. CBC is a crown corporation, and is VERY independent from the government. Programming and perspective are not linked with the government.

Here's what the Oxford Dictionary of Politics says about..

Quango: A quasi non-governmental organization is one created and funded by government, and, therefor, held to account for its expenditure, but given operational independence...


From: Sault Ste. Marie | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
JCL
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1387

posted 07 November 2001 07:01 PM      Profile for JCL     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Red Green was never on CBC.

This Hour Has 22 Minutes had its moments but I lost interest after a few episodes.

Royal Cdn Air Farce the same way. It has/had its moments but again I lost interest after one or two episodes.

Have been watching the National more than I used to. I suppose that's because on one of the US channels I get, they stopped playing the Simpsons at that time slot.

The Fifth Estate? *gags*

CBC survives on the advertising dollars for Hockey Night in Canada, CFL football and the Olympics. If it wasn't for the CBC, a majority of those shows would be on specialty channels. However, on Newsworld, I have been watching Counterspin when it is on. Can anyone tell me when it's usually on? Is it on several times a week?


From: Winnipeg. 35 days to Christmas yet no snow here. | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Doug
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 44

posted 07 November 2001 07:08 PM      Profile for Doug   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
My guess would be that it's just really difficult to make good television, because 90% of what's on sucks goat scrotums, whether it comes from private or public corporations.
From: Toronto, Canada | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
clockwork
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 690

posted 07 November 2001 07:08 PM      Profile for clockwork     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
doo-da-doo
From: Pokaroo! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 07 November 2001 07:12 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
JCL, counterSpin is on at 8 p.m. Monday-Wednesday, and I think there's a counterSpin Sunday too, and that has Avi Lewis on it. Not sure of the time for that.

Oh, and that's Ontario time. (ARE there any other time zones? Of course not, dahhhling)


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
David Kyle
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1530

posted 07 November 2001 09:03 PM      Profile for David Kyle     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
What about CBC radio!

Bill Richardson's, of Richardson's Roundup fame, interview with Bif Naked a week ago rocked.

Other great CBC radio shows: As it Happens, Dispatches, Ideas, Sound Advice, Tapestry, and Jazz Beat with Katie Malloch. What a voice she has, I could listen to her all day. I was crushed when I found out she's married. Life is so cruel.

[ November 07, 2001: Message edited by: David Kyle ]


From: canada | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca