CBC Called Out by Air Canada Social Media

[B208]

I never said I admire the CBC B208, I said I like it and find their standards high notwithstanding some exceptions. Calling them left wing is inaccurate though, they are centre (for Canada) which equals communist for a rabid right winger like you.

Dude, I note that you chose not to address your previous, (and now empirically proven to be inaccurate), claims that the CBC is unbiased.

With regard to the CBC's political bias; prepare to have your mind stretched. Pretty much everyone considers themselves to be moderate centrists. Certainly, if you ask most people on the street, they would describe themselves as slightly right or slightly left of centre. Very rare is the person who describes themselves as far right or left. This, of course, does not mean that they aren't far right or left, it just means that they don't recognize it. This last point brings us back to you and the CBC. The CBC says things that line up with your world view, therefore you think that they are centrist. You are wrong. You are both out on the left. What you lack is the perspective to recognize it. I know that you like to look down on the fellas south of the border who find Fox news a viable source of news. I have sad news for you. You aren't much different. The only thing that differentiates you from them is your choice of disinformation.

Now, back to the point at hand. There has been a long running hypothesis that CBC, (and journalists in general), have agendas and lack integrity. This just strengthens the argument in favour of that position. My advice to you Rockie is to recognize a lost cause and walk away from this argument. Further attempts to defend the CBC just make you look worse.

[B208]

Where to start......... I cast my first ballot in 1970 and from then on the Left CBC, the Right CBC and everything in between has always been on ongoing debate from politicos, partisans, hangers on, disgruntled journalists, you name it. The Communist CBC, The Neo Conservative CBC, Extreme Left CBC it has been all said by all ad nausea. The media has it in for the Government(of all stripes), if I had a buck for every time that was said I would retire with the same pension as the most senior AC B787 Captain.

For those into Archives, Google “ This Hour Has Seven Days” a mid 60’s CBC kinda investigative show. I barely remember it, didn’t watch it though was to young.

All very good points. However, one key point is missing. The world is dynamic, vice static. You have made reference to a `50 year period. During the 50s-70s our society and the "establishment", (Government, education system ect....), were much further to the right than today. The subject at hand is the CBC and establishment of today both of which show a real bent towards left wing fascism. Just to save people the trouble of looking it up:

Fascism /ˈfæʃɪzəm/ is a form of radical authoritarian nationalism,[1][2] characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition, and control of industry and commerce,[3

That bolded bit sounds very much like what current progressives are pushing with their calls to silence "climate deniers" and "hate speech". Isn't that interesting? The so called progressives, (antifa, BLM) are acting like what they purport to hate?

[Rockie]

The CBC is as unbiased as they come. Their political panels are always balanced with people from the whole political spectrum and all have their say in a respectful manner. Contrast that with the right wing echo chambers. You don't like it because you're extreme right. Extreme left wingers don't like it for essentially the same reason.

If individual CBC employees don't fall on your side of the aisle it may be because people on your side are constantly trying to put them out of work. I wonder how you would react?

[B208]

The CBC is as unbiased as they come.

Dude, I am literally chuckling as I type this. You're dogged determination to be seen as right is so funny it's almost cute. No organization is unbiased. None.
Yes, I am farther right on the political spectrum than what is currently mainstream. The key difference between us is that I know where I am. You, on the other hand, have lost SA on your position. Let me re-cage you. You are moderate left. You live somewhere between Marx and the centre, but you are definitely not on the centre. I am moderate right. I am most certainly not in the centre.

If individual CBC employees don't fall on your side of the aisle it may be because people on your side are constantly trying to put them out of work. I wonder how you would react?

Given that, as a taxpayer, I am their employer it is perfectly within my rights to want to fire them if their performance doesn't meet my standards.
I propose that we make CBC a subscription based service as opposed to a tax payer funded organization. That way people like Rockie can stand up for their principles and fund the organization. It would be a fantastic opportunity to virtue signal. CBC would be able to write whatever they wanted. I wouldn't have to pay for them. Everybody gets something.

[Rockie]

I said as unbiased as they come, I did not say they were unbiased. Stop chuckling at your own self-percieved cleverness and learn to read carefully.

Given that, as a taxpayer, I am their employer it is perfectly within my rights to want to fire them if their performance doesn't meet my standards.

Another example of inadequate reading. Of course it's your right to want to fire them, but they do not work for you and you are not their employer. The CBC is. And yours are not the only standards that count especially since yours are driven solely by ideology. If Canadians didn't want the CBC it wouldn't exist, but it does. A conundrum for such a clear headed thinker like yourself I know.

[Victory]

If you want to see unbiased reporting there are much better examples than the CBC. Like the NHK for example. They just tell you what happened and the facts of any event. That's all I want.

Anytime the CBC covers anything Trump, for example, they have to add in little jokes and jabs. Even their tone of voice is condescending. Especially CBC Radio. It makes you wonder what else they are putting their own little spin on.

I'm just using Trump as an example btw I don't want to get into a discussion about him.

[B208]

I said as unbiased as they come, I did not say they were unbiased. Stop chuckling at your own self-percieved cleverness and learn to read carefully.

Dude, if you really think that about CBC then you need to broaden your horizons. Also, in case you missed it, I said I was chuckling at you, not myself

.....yip yap and other crap about CBC being for all Canadians

Rockie, you're wrong. The CBC is an ideologically driven organization. Pure and simple. That is fine. I have no beef with them existing, I just feel no obligation to pay for them given that they provide me no useful service. As was stated in my previous post, (an studiously left unaddressed by you), let those Canadians who support the CBC pay for the CBC with subscriptions. Let the rest of us put our money to better use. Why are you so wrapped up in making everyone accept your beliefs Rockie? It smacks of insecurity.

[B208]

If you want to see unbiased reporting there are much better examples than the CBC. Like the NHK for example. They just tell you what happened and the facts of any event. That's all I want.

Anytime the CBC covers anything Trump, for example, they have to add in little jokes and jabs. Even their tone of voice is condescending. Especially CBC Radio. It makes you wonder what else they are putting their own little spin on.

I'm just using Trump as an example btw I don't want to get into a discussion about him.

BINGO

[Rockie]

Anytime the CBC covers anything Trump, for example, they have to add in little jokes and jabs.

You can't use that as an example, the entire world views Trump as a joke when they don't view him as the biggest danger to mankind ever to command a nuclear arsenal.

Dude, if you really think that about CBC then you need to broaden your horizons. Also, in case you missed it, I said I was chuckling at you, not myself

Just a suggestion B208, but if you want anyone to take anything you say seriously you have to stop beginning your posts with "Dude". Unless you're really just 13 then take comfort in the fact you'll eventually mature out of it. Or maybe not...

[B208]

Just a suggestion B208, but if you want anyone to take anything you say seriously you have to stop beginning your posts with "Dude". Unless you're really just 13 then take comfort in the fact you'll eventually mature out of it. Or maybe not...

Dude, I note you still did not address the idea of making CBC subscription based. With regard to the use of the term "Dude", I urge you to look up Bismark's comments on conducting negotiations.

[Rockie]

Impressively observant of you to notice I didn't address your ideas on the CBC B208. I didn't know I was supposed to, but since you expect me to I'll be honest and say it's a stupid idea. You clearly have no clue about specific Canadian requirements in a public broadcaster.

Did Bismarck find great success nogotiating like a 13 year old? I wouldn't have guessed.

[Rockie]

.

[B208]

You clearly have no clue about specific Canadian requirements in a public broadcaster.

Ah, and here we see the crux of your problem Rockie. You assume that your requirements are everyone's requirements. You are wrong.

Times have changed since the CBC was conceived. It is no longer needed.

Did Bismarck find great success nogotiating like a 13 year old? I wouldn't have guessed.

No, he advocated subtlety irritating your opponent until you got under their skin and they made a mistake; such as over indulging the urge for ad hominem.

[Rockie]

Your opinion is that it's no longer needed. If you were right Canadians wouldn't support it and therefore governments wouldn't either. Seems you're wrong, not even Harper could get rid of it though not for lack of effort.

You don't annoy me, but it is strange why you would view this as some sort of contest where you need to resort to juvenile tactics to force an error out of me. What for? What are we negotiating and what do you win besides bragging rights in the junior high lunch cafeteria?

[B208]

If you were right Canadians wouldn't support it and therefore governments wouldn't either.

Morning Dude, time for your Monday dose of reality. There are a small number of Canadians, (like you), who strongly support the CBC. There are a small number of Canadians, (like me), who strongly oppose the CBC. The vast majority of Canadians don't give a dead rat's ass one way or the other about the CBC.

You don't annoy me,

Oh, my mistake. I guess your normal manner is just snipping and confrontational.

but it is strange why you would view this as some sort of contest..

Couple of points here:
1.) It is a contest of influence. You, (and many others), purvey an ideology that is slow poison. I, along with an increasing number of others, will not allow it to pass unchallenged.
2.) If you don't view it as a contest, why do you keep coming back to the discussion?

Back to the original point at hand. Many people lack confidence in the standards at the CBC. The leaked email validates that lack of confidence.

[Rockie]

2.) If you don't view it as a contest, why do you keep coming back to the discussion?

Entertainment mostly. That, plus a small dose of trying to fathom how a mind like yours works since as you say your kind seems to have had great success lately especially down in the US of A. It's true you've been enjoying a surge since the first black president was elected (a coincidence I'm sure). It's also true people like you have always been around but more underground.

The "contest" in the large scheme of things is to drive you back underground. Time will tell how that develops, but here on AvCanada it's all just fun and entertainment.

[B208]

2.) If you don't view it as a contest, why do you keep coming back to the discussion?

trying to fathom how a mind like yours works

Your drive for self improvement is laudable.

It's true you've been enjoying a surge since the first black president was elected (a coincidence I'm sure).

Now, that is interesting. Your first instinct is to go for race. Your argument that we should elect Obama because he is black, is very similar to the argument that we should have elected Hillary because she was a woman. Both are stupid arguments.

My arguments against Obama are that he never produced anything on his own, he simply redistributed what others had made. He practiced the politics of division and used racial lines to enhance his political position, (he didn't invent that; he borrowed that page from the Nazis). He built no bridges and left his country weaker, poorer and horribly divided.

Hillary was a criminal.

I note that you steadfastly refuse to address the lack of integrity shown by the CBC.

[Old fella]

This “ dude” certainly had a following and good ratings amongst his contributions to the Canadian way via CBC

http://www.nationalnewswatch.com/2017/0 ... ck03XqVmf1

[Rockie]

Now, that is interesting. Your first instinct is to go for race.

It wasn't my first instinct at all, your posts over time have painted a very clear unequivacle picture of who you are.

Your argument that we should elect Obama because he is black, is very similar to the argument that we should have elected Hillary because she was a woman. Both are stupid arguments.

This is why I try and find out how your brain works. I've never said, hinted or intimated anybody should be elected because they're black, nor have I suggested anybody should be elected because they are female. I agree, both are stupid arguments. Not as stupid however as arguing that they shouldn't be elected for those reasons. You don't hate Clinton because she's a criminal, if that was it you'd hate Trump. But you don't somehow...very strange this blind spot people like you have.

[B208]

Now, that is interesting. Your first instinct is to go for race.

It wasn't my first instinct at all.

Well, it was the first thing out of your keyboard. The accusation of some 'ism' is the default play of modern fascists when their positions are challenged and they have no cogent argument with which to defend themselves. And, yes, Rockie; I did just call you a fascist.
Luckily, this tactic has been overused and the public at large has seen it for what it is; the misapplication of a label in an attempt to divert attention from a weak position.

I've never said, hinted or intimated anybody should be elected because they're black, nor have I suggested anybody should be elected because they are female.

...but you call anyone who won't vote for them either a racist or a sexist, hence the very strong implication that their race or gender are their main selling point for you. If you want to be taken seriously, leave race and gender out of the discussion.

Not as stupid however as arguing that they shouldn't be elected for those reasons.

True. Obama shouldn't have been elected because he was an opportunist ideologue who had never had to function outside the halls of government or academia. Clinton wasn't elected because she was an unlikeable, elitist hypocrite who carried with her a tremendous stench of corruption.

You don't hate Clinton because she's a criminal, if that was it you'd hate Trump.

[/quote]

I don't hate Clinton, I just trust her less than Trump. Hell, I even trust her less than the CBC!

Which brings me back to the point of how you can support the CBC in spite of the evidence that they lack integrity.