• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Media Bias [Merged]

Retired AF Guy said:
Going off-topic here but are bodyguards here in Canada allowed to carry firearms?? Nothing to do with Stroumboulopoulos; just curious.

Why not?

The Quebec government, the most anti gun government  in Canada, allowed 'Mom' Bouchard, president of the Hell's Angels' to carry, by permit issued by the Gov't of Quebec, a handgun for protection.

They let one of the biggest criminals, who was in charge of one of the largest criminal organisations in Canada, to carry a firearm for personal protection.

All the while, denying and demonising thousands of law abiding citizens of the province the same right to self defence.

By extention, why wouldn't the CBC be able to procure armed protection for Strombo?

 
Retired AF Guy said:
Going off-topic here but are bodyguards here in Canada allowed to carry firearms?? Nothing to do with Stroumboulopoulos; just curious.

Recce's point aside- which was a gigantic embarrassment.

Generally no. There have been numerous instances of bodyguards being caught armed when they shouldnt be. Both in Canada and the United States in the states where its prohibited.
 
Container said:
Recce's point aside- which was a gigantic embarrassment.

Generally no. There have been numerous instances of bodyguards being caught armed when they shouldnt be. Both in Canada and the United States in the states where its prohibited.

I'll add, unless you are a Judge or a high profile Lawyer, it is near impossible to get a permit to carry for protection in Canada.

IIRC, the yearly license stats show less than 30 legally allowed to carry for protection in all of Canada.

Mom Bouchard got one though ;)
 
Question - this party the CBC had - was there hospitality involved?

We're freakin nickeled and dimed yet the CBC can spend 72 grand on a party.

 
Jim Seggie said:
Question - this party the CBC had - was there hospitality involved?

We're freakin nickeled and dimed yet the CBC can spend 72 grand on a party.

Our Minister can only authorize $3,000 for hospitality, if I recall correctly. 

It would appear that the CBC is unlike Federal Departments in that regard, or that for it, a hospitality event is actually an operational activity for the CBC.
 
Good2Golf said:
Our Minister can only authorize $3,000 for hospitality, if I recall correctly. 

It would appear that the CBC is unlike Federal Departments in that regard, or that for it, a hospitality event is actually an operational activity for the CBC.


But of course, hoping "to create a buzz about the launch of their new show, George Stroumboulopoulos Tonight" is an absolutely vital operational activity, dahling, and one cannot expect the creative talent at the centre of the known universe to be bound by pesky little rules drawn up by drab little people in the frozen little capital by the Rideau Canal.
 
Good2Golf said:
Our Minister can only authorize $3,000 for hospitality, if I recall correctly. 

It would appear that the CBC is unlike Federal Departments in that regard, or that for it, a hospitality event is actually an operational activity for the CBC.
And I have to get three bids for coffee and doughnuts if I want to get the federal government to pay for some for a meeting with clients.
 
milnews.ca said:
And I have to get three bids for coffee and doughnuts if I want to get the federal government to pay for some for a meeting with clients.

And yet they still don't even trust us (or our respective chains) to not do something ridiculous with the money that they DO authorize us to spend ha ha.
 
Although I agree that DND's stooginess on things like food and drink is a bit over the top for things like coffee and doughnuts, I once worked for a certain organisation that thought it could provide 19K worth of booze over three nights without anyone approving it.  Got themselves in hot water over that one.

I think the CBC is going to get a rough ride as more expenses like that come to light.  remember they are celebrating 75 years...imagine what they have planned for that gong show.  Salaries, perks.  Interesting times over there...
 
Crantor said:
Although I agree that DND's stooginess on things like food and drink is a bit over the top for things like coffee and doughnuts, I once worked for a certain organisation that thought it could provide 19K worth of booze over three nights without anyone approving it.  Got themselves in hot water over that one.

I think the CBC is going to get a rough ride as more expenses like that come to light.  remember they are celebrating 75 years...imagine what they have planned for that gong show.  Salaries, perks.  Interesting times over there...

Crantor, it's not just DND...it's a Treasury Board directive that applies to all federal line Departments.  I have a friend who works over at Justice, and he says the Hospitality Policy is just as ridiculous over there.  I agree that there should be controls to ensure taxpayer money isn't wasted, but the current hospitality policy is so stingey, that if would embarrass my even my Scottish grandfather.  It either makes us Canadians look like incredible cheapskates when we are hosting other Nation's official, or, to keep embarrassment to a minimum, ends up in the gov't workers putting a collection of their own money together (I and my section did just that years ago hosting a RAF Station Commander) so that the government doesn't appear like such skinflints.    To then see the CBC neither confirming to those directives that the other Departments if they are supposed to as well, or worse yet, be given some kind of special dispensation to be allowed to spend huge amounts of money, yet figuratively spit in the taxpayers' faces by refusing to provide openly all information related to such expenditures...well...it's disappointing to say the least.

Regards
G2G
 
So is this blogger being overly sensitive?

http://bcblue.wordpress.com/2012/01/03/comparison-of-cbc-stories-on-liberal-conservative-mps-drinkingdriving/

Comparison of CBC stories on Liberal & Conservative MPs’ drinking/driving
January 3, 2012 — BC Blue

I noticed in this CBC story on Conservative MP Peter Goldring now sitting as a “Civil Libertarian” that Meagan Fitzpatrick made no mention of then MP Pablo Rodriguez staying within the Liberal caucus, so I asked her:

@fitzpatrick_m “You didn’t find it relevant to compare Goldring sitting as Libertarian to Rodriguez staying in Liberal caucus?”

It seems to be an odd omission especially since she related and retold the Helena Guergis saga. I’ll update if she answers.

This made me curious to compare it to the similar CBC story on Rodriguez so I did a search, found “Liberal remains in caucus after charge” and the one thing that stuck out at me right away was this line:

“remain a member of the Liberal Party caucus while he fights a charge”

As opposed to this in the Goldring story:

“leaving the Conservative caucus because of a criminal charge”

Both were charged with the same “refusing to provide a breath sample” but no where does the word “criminal” appear in the Rodriguez story.

Take a look at both stories and see if you notice a difference in tone and let me know if you think I’m just being paranoid.
 
The CBC is willing to believe "unnamed sources" over the person who actually heard the tape. Hmmmmm

http://thealbertaardvark.blogspot.com/2012/01/cbc-ombudsman-essentially-finds-police.html

The CBC Ombudsman essentially finds police chief Blair to be a liar.
The title pretty much sums it up.

CBC Ombudsman report on Rob Ford's 911 call. (PDF)

"Resolution of such a dispute requires an impartial investigation. In view of the fact the Toronto Police Service depends on budget deliberations headed by the mayor, and in view of the fact this year’s police budget that averted layoffs was reached only in the week before this incident, I concluded CBC could not rest on Blair’s account. Not only were its sources adamant about their information, the chief was not a disinterested party."


"I did not find a violation of CBC Journalistic Standards"

Call me crazy but taking the word of an anonymous source(s), who may or may not have heard ANYTHING (because CBC refuses to tell us who they are) over the Chief of Police for the City of Toronto who we know has heard the tapes and has publicly said so, does not sound like high journalistic standards to me.
 
I will just say this: if I am correct, I remember reading that the CBC's Chief Correspondant (i.e., Peter Mansbridge) used to be an officer of the RCN. Therefore, there should be a policy at the CBC that with anything Navy related, the staff of the CBC should ask Mr. Mansbridge if they are correct in the information that they are telling Canadians.
 
ctjj.stevenson said:
I will just say this: if I am correct, I remember reading that the CBC's Chief Correspondant (i.e., Peter Mansbridge) used to be an officer of the RCN. Therefore, there should be a policy at the CBC that with anything Navy related, the staff of the CBC should ask Mr. Mansbridge if they are correct in the information that they are telling Canadians.

He served in 1966-67. Mansbridge served less time than the former Corporal-turned -journalist-who's- name-makes-kittens-die-if-mentioned, and we know how much we regard him as an expert.
 
SCOTT TAYLOR

I hate cats

Anyways... My in-laws got me his book for xmas... Talk about faking a thank you...

Oh it was signed by him as well
 
Halifax Tar said:
...
I hate cats
...

We could plan a book-burning in my office when I get back from leave at the end of the month. Just sayin'.

Had to delete the rest of your post containing name and 'him' because I like cats.  ;D
 
ctjj.stevenson said:
I will just say this: if I am correct, I remember reading that the CBC's Chief Correspondant (i.e., Peter Mansbridge) used to be an officer of the RCN. Therefore, there should be a policy at the CBC that with anything Navy related, the staff of the CBC should ask Mr. Mansbridge if they are correct in the information that they are telling Canadians.
How current do you think Mr. Mansbridge stays on naval issues, language and terminology 45 years after he was in?  I've been out more than 20 years, and a LOT has changed....


 
Meanwhile, in BC, the CBC (and other media outlets) shill for the BC Liberals.  For some reason, the wife of the Victoria Bureau Chief working in the Premier's Office does not constitute a conflict of interest to the CBC...

http://alexgtsakumis.com/2011/12/21/cbc-vancouvers-victoria-bureau-chief-still-in-a-blatant-conflict-of-interest-and-the-cbc-doesnt-care-so-stop-watching-them-now/

CBC Vancouver’s Victoria Bureau Chief STILL In a Blatant Conflict of Interest: AND THE CBC DOESN’T CARE SO STOP WATCHING THEM NOW!


Some time ago, in remarks that spawned outrage in the chattering classes, I stated, with considerable validity, that the CBC was (and remains) a culturally corrupt organization that often commits to viral conflicts of interest–and federally, spiteful hitjobs on anyone, at will, and with no regard for collateral consequences. I concluded, therefore, that they should be defrocked and privatized, instead of lasting as Canadian taxpayers $1 billion dollar millstone.

This, you’ll be amused (or perhaps not–those of you still suffering from what I have coined as ‘The Great Canadian Mothership Delusion’), was to a downtown business group that should have known better than to expect a milquetoast speech from me. However, the attempts at reprisal were as pathetic as the arguments. Calling my then producer was wholly pedestrian, but the claims of the CBC’s “journalistic excellence” were throughly comical.

David Suzuki’s pompous climate change alarmist hooey is excellence? Regular attacks, for the sake of attacking, against Conservatives is excellence? Scantily covering the Chretien controversies, including ‘Shawinigate’ were excellence? Almost completely ignoring, and at one point defending, the Liberal Party of Canada’s ‘AdScam’ is excellence? The apotheosis of Jack Layton was excellence?

Forgive me, it’s not that there aren’t stories about Tory foibles and missteps worth covering. But the viral nature of their biases, on many issues, is not how your tax dollar should be spent.

In British California, our problem is greater–much. The blurring of political and media lines is never good, but the press, having been beaten like a rented ass for over a decade, has assumed the position of de facto buffer to whomever they might be aligned.

Case in point: I broke the news earlier this year of former ‘Bill Good’ fartcatcher Rebecca Scott being elevated to Deputy Press Secretary in the Christy Clark government. Her then fiance, now husband, is Stephen Smart, the CBC’s Victoria Bureau Chief. Smart, who I had the pleasure of working with at CTV Vancouver, is a decent sort, who is intelligent and capable. But that’s not the issue here. His wife, on the other hand, is an airhead. It was obvious every time I was in CKNW studios (while she was filling the Vanilla Man’s binder with drivel), as it was with most of the other little girls, fresh from six months in something called ‘broadcast school’ (NW management had a penchant for hiring like this, though I am pleased to report that they have since been disabused of this practice). Scott, who is still employed as part of Premier Clark’s propaganda detail, received her promotion immediately after the Premier’s win. At that point, Smart had not been CBC’s Victoria Bureau Chief for very long.

I wrote about it in the early days, ad naseum, and even received a few angry calls from those at NW and CBC that thought nothing of my principled grievance.

Well, that was then, and this is now. Smart had done TWO pieces critical of the Premier, during a ten month run of nothingness from Clark. The end of year exclusive to Smart is further evidence that his objections to her ignoring him was simply more whining, only to be rewarded with gruel thinner than poor Oliver endured. He did a fair piece on her, ONCE, and she recoiled. He complained, Becks and Smartie chatted over dinner, and the deal was back on.

How much more of this inanity from the CBC must the public subjected to?

One of the best political bloggers in Canada, Norm Farrell, has done a wonderful job in spiking this story with a generous, if not brilliant, twist. He’s appealed to CBC Ombusman, Kirk LaPointe, asking for an opinion on Smart’s obvious conflict.

This will be more than just interesting. LaPointe is the former managing editor of the once great (before he and Patricia Graham ruined it) Vancouver Sun. While there, he was responsible for the kinds of emails that would arrive in your inbox still aflame. His monstrous, outrageous treatment of Frances Bula, when she was bought out of her contract, is the stuff of legend. Fair-minded former colleagues of Bula have recalled for me, several LaPointe(d) moments. It amazes me how such a loon survived there as long as he did.

Norm may find that he’ll receive some perfunctory response, after Smart’s painfully obvious conflict has been yawned at.

But I have a better answer. Last month, well-over 107,000 BCers read this blog. Email the CBC Vancouver and tell them you’re going to boycott them until Smart has been removed as Victoria Bureau Chief and reassigned to covering other, perhaps local political stories. Don’t stop there. Report them to the CRTC. If they are in clear violation of their own rules, then they must also be in violation of the CRTC’s broader principles.

Smart is a damn good reporter, who deserves better.

Although, the whole affair not only reflects badly on the CBC, but Scott and particularly Smart himself. Either his wife shouldn’t have taken the job with the Premier or he should have stepped down after she accepted to be part of the Premier’s messaging detail.

This is the state of affairs with the biased mainstream media in this province.

Although, you’ll be pleased to know; the wheel is slowly turning….the new year will bring some significant changes.
 
RangerRay said:
For some reason, the wife of the Victoria Bureau Chief working in the Premier's Office does not constitute a conflict of interest to the CBC...

It would if it were the Conservatives in power in BC....
 
PuckChaser said:
It would if it were the Conservatives in power in BC....

WARNING: :off topic:

In BC, the BC Liberals are the current installment of a Liberal/Conservative coalition that has been around in one form or another since the 1940s.  This includes Social Credit which has been around from 1951 to 1991.  The provincial Tories have not been a force since the Socreds became the free-enterprise coalition, and elected it's last MLA in the 1970s.

However, due to the recent stink emanating from the BC Liberals (who have governed more as a neo-liberal corporatist party rather than a free-enterprise coalition), especially under Christy Clark (who is a big 'L' Liberal), conservative voters are fleeing to the upstart BC Conservative Party led by former Tory MP John Cummins.

The media in BC was very hard on the Socreds under Vander Zalm and the NDP in the 90s.  They have given the BC Liberals a free ride since they were elected in 2001, especially now that the Prom Queen is in charge.

Should be an interesting couple of years!  ;D

 
Back
Top