Media Bias [Merged]

[Kirkhill]

From today's National Post

L. Ian MacDonald: Look who's talking (en Anglais)
Posted: December 20, 2007, 11:03 AM by Marni Soupcoff
L. Ian MacDonald

OTTAWA - According to Hansard, the official journal of the House of Commons, Pablo Rodriguez rarely asks questions in English. In the recently completed seven-week fall session, Rodriguez asked only one of his eight questions in English. The other seven were entirely in French.

First elected as a Liberal from Montreal in 2004, Rodriguez is not remembered for asking questions in English during the two years of the previous Parliament, when as a freshman backbencher in Paul Martin's government, he wouldn't have had any opportunities anyway. "I never heard him ask a question in English," says Jean Lapierre, who sat in the Martin government as transport minister and Quebec lieutenant.

On his Web site, Rodriguez lists his preferred language of communication as French, and one of his shadow critic roles has been for la Francophonie. He is not known for speaking English very much, and certainly not known for writing it.

Yet he turned up as a visiting Liberal member of the ethics committee last week, with a line of questioning for Brian Mulroney on whether he had ever lobbied Maxime Bernier, when Bernier was industry minister, on behalf of Quebecor, of which Mulroney is a director, as a new entrant in the telecom wireless spectrum auction. The questions were primarily in English, and they were drafted with lawyerly precision, leaving very little wiggle room in answering them.

The entire line of questioning could have been ruled out of order, since the committee's mandate was to examine "the Airbus settlement" of 1997, not the wireless auction process of 2007. But the Liberal chairman, Paul Szabo, allowed it, and wouldn't even permit Mulroney to read a letter from the committee clerk defining the terms of reference.

Rodriguez had two exchanges with Mulroney, and it was the second round that was quite striking for its specificity in English:

"Mr. Mulroney, you said you made no presentation to Maxime Bernier on the wireless spectrum issue. While he was the industry minister, have you ever had a private or public dinner or lunch with him in Montreal, or any other city? Have you ever met with him at all? If so, how many times, in which city? Have you ever placed a telephone call to him, or has he called you? On any of those, did you discuss the wireless spectrum issue?"

No sooner had Mulroney's appearance concluded than Jean Lapierre went on television and said the following: "I knew all about those questions. They were written by the CBC and provided to the Liberal members of Parliament, and the questions that Pablo Rodriguez asked were written by the CBC, and I can't believe that but last night, an influential Member of Parliament came to me and told me those are the questions that the CBC wants us to ask tomorrow."

Subsequently, a Liberal researcher told CTV's Mike Duffy the CBC hadn't written the questions for the Liberals, only dictated them.

The next day, the Conservatives filed a formal complaint to the CBC's ombudsperson, Vince Carlin. By day's end, The Canadian Press moved the following lead: "The CBC has begun an internal investigation and possible disciplinary process after one of its parliamentary reporters suggested questions to a Liberal MP on the Commons ethics committee." The CBC said that while the underlying story about Mulroney's possible connection to Bernier was legitimate, "this was an inappropriate way of going about it, and as such inconsistent with our journalistic policies and practices."

At the end of the day last Friday, CBC executive Sean Poulter sent the Conservatives a confidential e-mail acknowledging "actions in pursuing the story were inappropriate and against CBC/Radio-Canada's journalistic standards … they want to make sure this doesn't happen in the future."

The allegation is clear: collusion, not collaboration, between the public broadcaster and the Official Opposition.

And there, pending the results of an internal hearing and response to the Conservatives' formal complaint, the matter rests. Rodriguez insists, as he told The Hill Times newspaper, that he was "inspired by what I saw on TV, inspired by the questions in the House of Commons, inspired by the fact that Mr. Bernier never wants to answer questions …"

"Inspired," he was. But apparently the word loses something in the translation.

Imacdonald@irpp.org

- L. Ian MacDonald is editor of Policy Options magazine. He was chief speech writer to prime minister Brian Mulroney from 1985-1988. He is on retainer as a political commentator with CTV.

 

[Neill McKay]

In todays world there is no one who can not get their information from a private source (ie not government funded).  Once long ago before the internet, podcasts, satellite tv and all the rest the CBC was the only game in some places.  That is no longer the case, therefore the cause and reason for the CBC's funding is gone as it should be.

Even where the news is concerned, surely nobody is prepared to argue that the CBC is rife with bias while the private broadcasters are completely free of any.  In an imperfect world perhaps the best we can reasonably expect is a balance of bias on both sides of an issue, and let it be up to the intelligent listener, viewer, or reader to take it all in and synthesize his or her own opinion after hearing from all sides.

If the only function of the CBC were to report the news than you'd have a good point, but it does considerably more than that -- including things that private broadcasters would, in all likelihood, not bother doing.  Except where regulations require it, no private broadcaster will ever do much of anything with a goal other than making money for its shareholders.  That's not always consistent with what's in the public interest, nor does it lend itself to serving any community other than the largest and wealthiest (and therefore most attractive to advertisers).

 

[RangerRay]

Even where the news is concerned, surely nobody is prepared to argue that the CBC is rife with bias while the private broadcasters are completely free of any.  In an imperfect world perhaps the best we can reasonably expect is a balance of bias on both sides of an issue, and let it be up to the intelligent listener, viewer, or reader to take it all in and synthesize his or her own opinion after hearing from all sides.

I have no problem with bias as long as it is a) declared for all to know, and b) free of public funds.

In the case of the CBC, it is a Crown corporation (ie. publicly owned and funded) and does not declare it's biases like the Toronto Star or National Post.  In fact, the CBC claims to be fair and balanced.  Many on the right would disagree with that self assessment.

As far as I'm concerned, a private outlet can be as biased as it wants to be.  However, when that broadcaster is a public broadcaster kept afloat by taxpayers' money, it should at least try to be fair and balanced.

 

[armyvern]

Even where the news is concerned, surely nobody is prepared to argue that the CBC is rife with bias while the private broadcasters are completely free of any.  In an imperfect world perhaps the best we can reasonably expect is a balance of bias on both sides of an issue, and let it be up to the intelligent listener, viewer, or reader to take it all in and synthesize his or her own opinion after hearing from all sides.

But, there is quite the difference between dictating what the topic questions will be exactly for a member of the Liberal Party to ask, which also just happens to be the Party who has provided the Chairman for the inquiry no? Especially when those questions are outside the mandate of a FEDERAL inquiry, but are allowed due to the bias?

YOU don't see that shit happening in the independant media ... they don't have the insider status to pull that crap off -- and sorry, but I just don't see the CBCs ability to finangle their way and their agenda into "owning" FEDERAL inquiries as "in the public interest". What "all sides" are you talking about?

 

[GAP]

Every aspect of the CBC's reporting is bias against the present government. If you listen to the same subject on CTV, City, etc....the facts are there, but bias isn't (generally...sometimes CTV is just as bad, especially Craig Oliver), but on CBC it just goes on and on and on to the point that I literally turn it to another station.

I would vote that the CBC TV be disbanded/disintered, whatever, just get rid of it.

 

[IN HOC SIGNO]

Every aspect of the CBC's reporting is bias against the present government. If you listen to the same subject on CTV, City, etc....the facts are there, but bias isn't (generally...sometimes CTV is just as bad, especially Craig Oliver), but on CBC it just goes on and on and on to the point that I literally turn it to another station.

I would vote that the CBC TV be disbanded/disintered, whatever, just get rid of it.

Only if CTV will buy the rights for Hockey Night in Canada and Coaches Corner.  ;D

 

[Good2Golf]

I have no problem with bias as long as it is a) declared for all to know, and b) free of public funds.

In the case of the CBC, it is a Crown corporation (ie. publicly owned and funded) and does not declare it's biases like the Toronto Star or National Post.  In fact, the CBC claims to be fair and balanced.  Many on the right would disagree with that self assessment.

As far as I'm concerned, a private outlet can be as biased as it wants to be.  However, when that broadcaster is a public broadcaster kept afloat by taxpayers' money, it should at least try to be fair and balanced.

+1 !!!

Well said, Ray!

 

[Reccesoldier]

If the only function of the CBC were to report the news than you'd have a good point, but it does considerably more than that -- including things that private broadcasters would, in all likelihood, not bother doing.  Except where regulations require it, no private broadcaster will ever do much of anything with a goal other than making money for its shareholders.  That's not always consistent with what's in the public interest, nor does it lend itself to serving any community other than the largest and wealthiest (and therefore most attractive to advertisers).

Excuse me but what I'm reading makes no sense.  If a private broadcaster has, as you suggest, no incentive to serve the public interest just how then are they making money?  On the other hand you seem to claim that the CBC, a broadcaster funded, whether anyone watches or not, has some sort of moral imperitive to produce what we the people want to see? I think you've got your assumptions back assward.

It is the CBC that has no reason to comply with the wishes of the people, after all they get their taxmoney regardless of what or how good of a job they do providing services to the taxpayer.  A private broadcaster on the other hand must satisfy their audience or there is no money and they go out of business.

So how exactly is a business' interest not consistent with the public interest?  You're not one of those people that equates profit with evil are you?

 

[Kirkhill]

....You're not one of those people that equates profit with evil are you?

Probably not.  But he might be one of those people that thinks that there are Truths and Lies as opposed to Information.

 

[Neill McKay]

Excuse me but what I'm reading makes no sense.  If a private broadcaster has, as you suggest, no incentive to serve the public interest just how then are they making money?  On the other hand you seem to claim that the CBC, a broadcaster funded, whether anyone watches or not, has some sort of moral imperitive to produce what we the people want to see? I think you've got your assumptions back assward.

It is the CBC that has no reason to comply with the wishes of the people, after all they get their taxmoney regardless of what or how good of a job they do providing services to the taxpayer.  A private broadcaster on the other hand must satisfy their audience or there is no money and they go out of business.

A public broadcaster's customers are the tax-paying public.  If the public are sufficiently unhappy with the CBC they can lobby their MPs to pull the plug.  The fact that this hasn't happened on any significant scale, and the fact that there has historically been some public protest when the CBC's budget has been cut, suggests that  people are listening to and watching the CBC.  "Whether anyone watches or not" is moot -- people obviously are.

Here is the fundamental difference with a private broadcaster: you, the listener or viewer, are not the client.  Advertisers are the clients -- viewers and listeners are the commodity whose time and attention are being sold to the clients.

So how exactly is a business' interest not consistent with the public interest?  You're not one of those people that equates profit with evil are you?

No I'm not.  But in private broadcasting the business' interests are in serving advertisers, not the public.  While the CBC can (and does) air some programming that appeals to only a small part of the potential audience, such programming might not be able to attract enough advertising dollars to make economic sense for a private broadcaster.  The private broadcaster will seek to make the best use of its air time to maximize its profits.  That's fine with me; we have the CBC to provide for programming that appeals to a variety of smaller groups who would otherwise not be served at all.

The hard-nosed capitalist will say that the market should decide what will be broadcast and if a certain programme's audience is too small for it to be economical then they can just lump it.  But that's not how we work public services in this country.  If it were then a lot of people would be without postal service, transportation (including roads), or medical care, to pick the most obvious examples.  Part of the government's role is to serve those who the private sector will not serve.

 

[Neill McKay]

I have no problem with bias as long as it is a) declared for all to know, and b) free of public funds.

In the case of the CBC, it is a Crown corporation (ie. publicly owned and funded) and does not declare it's biases like the Toronto Star or National Post.

I've read the National Post quite a few times, and certainly found bias in it -- but I've never seen any declaration of that bias.  I'm not familiar with the Toronto Star so no comment from me on that one.

In fact, the CBC claims to be fair and balanced.  Many on the right would disagree with that self assessment.

Interestingly, so would many on the left.  I understand that the CBC is criticized for being biased in both directions in about equal measure, which suggests that they're doing about as well as anyone could.

As far as I'm concerned, a private outlet can be as biased as it wants to be.  However, when that broadcaster is a public broadcaster kept afloat by taxpayers' money, it should at least try to be fair and balanced.

And I think on the whole it does.  No doubt many of the hundreds of CBC employees have their own personal biases, but any suggestion that there is some sort of corporate direction that "we shall all slant our stories against the Conservative government" or what-have-you would border on a conspiracy theory.  It is, after all, an organization largely staffed by professional journalists and I'd have a hard time believing that they are all ethically bankrupt.

As part of my civilian job I've spent a lot of time following the media, especially CBC, CTV, and various print outlets.  If someone told me to go and find a slanted story and gave me a really tight deadline I promise you I'd go looking elsewhere than the CBC first.

 

[Reccesoldier]

A public broadcaster's customers are the tax-paying public.  If the public are sufficiently unhappy with the CBC they can lobby their MPs to pull the plug.  The fact that this hasn't happened on any significant scale, and the fact that there has historically been some public protest when the CBC's budget has been cut, suggests that  people are listening to and watching the CBC.  "Whether anyone watches or not" is moot -- people obviously are.

The majority of the population I would argue doesn't think of the CBC at all and as a result the continued funding is a result of apathy, not intent.  The only people I ever recall protesting CBC cuts were those who had a vested interest in the message being deliverd by the CBC.

Here is the fundamental difference with a private broadcaster: you, the listener or viewer, are not the client.  Advertisers are the clients -- viewers and listeners are the commodity whose time and attention are being sold to the clients.

No I'm not.  But in private broadcasting the business' interests are in serving advertisers, not the public.  While the CBC can (and does) air some programming that appeals to only a small part of the potential audience, such programming might not be able to attract enough advertising dollars to make economic sense for a private broadcaster.  The private broadcaster will seek to make the best use of its air time to maximize its profits.  That's fine with me; we have the CBC to provide for programming that appeals to a variety of smaller groups who would otherwise not be served at all.

Right.  So the advertiser is divorced from the broadcaster's need to have an audience?  Your argument doesn't hold water.  In order for the advertiser to make money people have to see the advertizement, that necesitates the broadcaster having shows that people want to see.  And that means that the broadcaster (and the advertizer) must produce a product that comply's with the public interest.

The CBC also advertises.  By your argument this should mean that they aren't responsible to the taxpayers that fund them either.

The hard-nosed capitalist will say that the market should decide what will be broadcast and if a certain programme's audience is too small for it to be economical then they can just lump it.  But that's not how we work public services in this country.  If it were then a lot of people would be without postal service, transportation (including roads), or medical care, to pick the most obvious examples.  Part of the government's role is to serve those who the private sector will not serve.

Apples and oranges.  Postal service, roads and medical care are considered by the majority of Canadains to be social services in the true meaning of the word, being able to watch "Little Mosque on the Prarie" isn't.  

 

[Roy Harding]

I agree with Neil here.  I can't speak to the television side of things (I rarely watch television, and NEVER watch television news) - but my radio is usually tuned to CBC all day long.  There are some programmes I can't STAND (The Debaters, Definitely Not The Opera, among others) - but in general I find them a fair representer of different points of view.

And - just to add to what Neil said about serving the public where commercial interests won't go - here in Terrace my OTHER choices are First Nations Radio (which isn't bad) or some country station.  That's it.


Roy

 

[Neill McKay]

The majority of the population I would argue doesn't think of the CBC at all and as a result the continued funding is a result of apathy, not intent.  The only people I ever recall protesting CBC cuts were those who had a vested interest in the message being deliverd by the CBC.

You say that as if there were only one message, which is far from the case.  Or am I misunderstanding you?

Right.  So the advertiser is divorced from the broadcaster's need to have an audience?  Your argument doesn't hold water.  In order for the advertiser to make money people have to see the advertizement, that necesitates the broadcaster having shows that people want to see.  And that means that the broadcaster (and the advertizer) must produce a product that comply's with the public interest.

When I talk about the "public interest" I mean the good of the public, not simply what the majority of the public are interested in watching.  You're right that a commercial station has to provide programming that people will want to listen to or watch in order to provide an attractive product for its advertisers, however it is not accountable to its audience for the quality of its services.  A public broadcaster is.  A commercial broadcaster's goal is to get a large slice of the audience to watch or listen in order to be able to, in effect, hire out the audience to advertisers.  If that means playing nothing but top-40 music all day because that's what 40 per cent of the audience want to hear then that's what they'll do.  If another 40 per cent want to listen to country someone else will establish a country station to serve that 40 per cent.  The remaining 20 per cent, who don't want to listen to top-40 or country music, will be out of luck.

The CBC also advertises.  By your argument this should mean that they aren't responsible to the taxpayers that fund them either.

The various CBC television channels advertise.  None of the CBC radio networks do.

Regardless of that distinction, I don't follow your reasoning.  In any case, it's significant that the overwhelming majority of CBC TV viewers are also Canadian taxpayers, so in that particular case they are both clients and the commodity that is being sold to other clients (the advertisers).  A good chunk of the advertisers are also Canadian taxpayers too, of course.

Apples and oranges.

Not really; I'd say it's a matter of degrees but the principle is the same.  Transportation is more critical to the public good than the CBC, but the fact remains that the promotion of Canadian arts and culture is something that serves the public good yet does not necessarily have the same potential to rake in dollars as, say, CSI: Miami or whatever US programme happens to be popular at the moment.  And that's exactly what we'd be seeing, to the exclusion of just about everything else, if the private sector had free run of the airwaves.

 

[Reccesoldier]

I understand what you are getting at, really I do, but our outlooks are incompatable.  You see "public good" in Public Radio and TV I see distraction from the things our government really should be doing with that money.

It seems to me that "public good" is a phrase that has been stretched beyond recognition.  Various governments have sought to convince us all that everything they do with OUR money is in the public interest (public good).  From safe injection sites, so we can enable the drug adicted to be drug adicted safely, to free food and shelter so that the homeless industry can keep their customers happy and sufficiently insulated from the reality of paying for their food and housing like everyone else in society, or conversely the mentally ill that fill these places aren't forced to get the treatment that they should because they function in a charity grey zone that keeps them below the radar.  Meanwhile after paying into the system for their entire lives people must wait 2 years for a hip replacement, and crime is a growth industry because ther aren't enough cops on the street.

 

[Reccesoldier]

This from Stephie Dion in a December 7, 2007 interview on CPAC regarding his pending participation in the Bali conference.

I'm not there to contradict the government as much as I'm there to help each delegation to go to the right direction.

The second is directly from Mr. Dion's Bali Blog, December 13, 2007.

Canada’s Environment Minister John Baird has been spreading misinformation since the beginning of the week, trying to force-feed his vision to the 10,000 delegates present, but they won’t be fooled.

The situation is such that, at the request of Canadian national media here on site, I held a press conference in which I was able to deliver the truth.

First of all, Mr. Baird was not being candid with the assembly and his speech was not consistent with what Canada is actually doing in these negotiations. He tried to make people believe we would stand by our commitments – when he has walked away from Kyoto.

Emphasis mine...

I for one would dearly love to know which of our National Media outlets this was.  I'm thinking you can guess where I'd put my money.

 

[a_majoor]

Someone somewhere will be assigned to the Northern Saskatchewan newsdesk, but we, the paying public may never find out the full extent of things:

http://torydrroy.blogspot.com/2008/01/cbc-discipline.html

CBC discipline
The CBC is now admitting there was collusion between their reporter(s) and the grits.

They further admit this was wrong and the reporter will be punished.

Steve Janke points out the punishment they will mete out is a secret. I see this as just another CBC/grit coverup. The grits have no problems with this collusion, which makes me think this is a regular occurrence. The CBC should release the name of the reporter and whether this has happened before. The CBC has very little credibility with a lot of Canadians. They are clearly a grit mouth organ. \I hope the rest of the media will continue to expose this CBC/grit collusion.

It is yet another reason to privatize this biased network with few viewers or listeners.

 

 

[Neill McKay]

Someone somewhere will be assigned to the Northern Saskatchewan newsdesk, but we, the paying public may never find out the full extent of things

Should we?  It's not a matter of public information when Private Bloggins screws up and gets a bunch of extras.

Unless the law has been broken it's simply a human resources matter, with all of the usual privacy issues inherent in human resources matters.

 

[Reccesoldier]

Should we?  It's not a matter of public information when Private Bloggins screws up and gets a bunch of extras.

Unless the law has been broken it's simply a human resources matter, with all of the usual privacy issues inherent in human resources matters.

When Pte Bloggins gets extras it isn't because he's colluding with an opposition political party against the government... If he were you're darn tooting that it would be news with a capital "N" and EVERYBODY would know.

 

[armyvern]

When Pte Bloggins gets extras it isn't because he's colluding with an opposition political party against the government... If he were you're darn tooting that it would be news with a capital "N" and EVERYBODY would know.

No one said it wasn't unethical (I think it's highly so), but that doesn't make it illegal.

Apples / Oranges