Media Bias [Merged]

[eurowing]

  I would have loved to see the season played in empty arenas, but hockey fans just rolled over, spread their cheeks and not only took it, but thanked them for it.  Athletes striking and owners locking them out is ridiculous.

:goodpost: :goodpost:

 

[Edward Campbell]

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail, is an interesting (and biased) point of view:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/the-cbc-is-in-crisis-canadians-deserve-to-know-why/article11676193/#dashboard/follows/

The CBC is in crisis. Canadians deserve to know why

WADE ROWLAND
Special to The Globe and Mail

Published Thursday, May. 02 2013

What does Kirstine Stewart know about the future of the CBC that the rest of us don’t?

Why does anyone leave a job as the most powerful and influential media executive in the country to sell ads for Twitter Canada? And why leave immediately, without prior notice?

Ms. Stewart has spent seven years as a senior executive at the CBC, hired by the much-maligned Richard Stursberg to head up CBC television. She wound up replacing her boss as vice-president of all English language services when Mr. Stursberg was fired by the current CBC president, Hubert Lacroix in 2011.

That’s seven years on the public payroll, in charge of the country’s single most important cultural institution.

As usual, the CBC is as forthcoming about the circumstances of her leaving as a Sicilian mafioso is about a death in the family. All we get is the usual PR blather about how she “really understands the role of the public broadcaster and has been a fierce proponent of its distinctive place,” [Lacroix], and how she’s “proud of what we’ve done together these past seven years,” and how she’ll “miss the CBC family dearly [Stewart].”

When it comes to public communication, the CBC itself is a lost cause, too deeply immersed in the issues of commercial secrecy and proprietary information to offer insight without a federal warrant. But we have a right to expect more of Ms. Stewart herself. She owes us.

The citizens of this country need and deserve a full explanation of current conditions within the CBC, and how management is responding. The corporation is facing an existential financial and cultural crisis – a crisis of leadership and purpose – and the people who fund it need to know exactly what’s going on.

It’s time for the silence and obfuscation to end. The country is in peril of losing its public broadcaster, in any recognizable form, and we need to know how to prevent that from happening. We need a say in the crucial decisions that will be made over the next year or two as to what direction our public service broadcaster ought to be taking in response to overwhelming financial pressures.

Here’s what Mr. Stursberg says about his hiring of Stewart in his recent tell-all CBC memoir Tower of Babble:

“We needed … someone who would manage the television schedule and define what was required from the drama, documentary and reality departments…someone with a deep knowledge of all the different genres, and excellent grasp of audience needs, a keen sense of flow within the schedule and brutal competitive instincts. We needed a programming thug.”

During the hiring interview, Mr. Stursberg says, “we talked about audiences. We never talked about the mandate of public broadcasting or the trade-off between quality and popularity. We focused exclusively on audiences.”

That phrase, “the trade-off between quality and popularity” is a cop-out that occurs repeatedly throughout Mr. Sturberg’s book, and was a mantra of his enormously destructive, six-year stewardship of CBC English-language programming on radio and television.

It is a false dichotomy, a boogeyman. It is of course not the case that public service programming is either popular or of high quality. CBC radio proves the point – it’s both at the same time. And in television one need only look to the BBC and the many public broadcasters in Europe and around the world that produce TV programs that are both of exceptional quality and enormously popular.

The problem that is killing the CBC is the fact that, on television, it is not a true and authentic public broadcaster. It is an unmanageable hybrid. It must serve a poorly-defined public service mandate, but at the same time it is saddled with commercial sponsorship for half its income.

The commercial mandate demands that advertising revenue be maximized. The public service mandate demands excellence in information and entertainment – which means reflecting the country’s values, interests and aspirations in all genres of programming. The job of the public broadcaster is to make popular programming excellent, and excellent programming popular. The job of a commercial broadcaster is to do whatever it takes to maximize advertising revenue.

Sometime within the next two years, the CBC is almost certainly going to lose its single largest source of advertising revenue, NHL hockey. It will be out-bid for the contract by one of the country’s enormously wealthy commercial broadcasters, probably Bell Media. That will mean a loss of 40 per cent of the corporation’s total annual ad revenue, but also a loss of something close to 400 hours of Canadian content programming – a hole that will have to be filled. Already bled white by decades of funding reductions from successive federal governments, the CBC is in no position to survive this blow.

With a decidedly unfriendly sponsor in Ottawa, we can expect what will amount to a privatization of the public broadcaster. This is a process that has been underway now for nearly a decade, under the stewardship of former CBC president Robert Rabinovitch, the current president Hubert Lacroix, and vice-presidents Richard Stursberg and Kirstine Stewart.

By privatization I mean the sidelining of the public service mandate for excellence in favour of the commercial mandate for ratings and profit. As Mr. Stursberg himself puts it in his memoir, under his reign the CBC was re-oriented in a purely commercial, ratings-driven direction, just like the surrounding hoard of commercial broadcasters.

The standards by which programs would be judged at the CBC would be identical: “It would be a brutal standard,” he boasts. “It would no longer allow [programmers] to fudge the meaning of success by talking vaguely about ‘mandates,’ and ‘quality.’ It would be a standard by which shows, producers, stars and executives would be judged.”

And then, of course, there’s the fact that the CBC has applied to the CRTC for permission to introduce advertising on Radio 2. The decision is imminent.

It’s hard to believe that all of this did not play into Stewart’s decision to jump ship. Canadians need to know, and she has a duty to tell.

Wade Rowland is author of the newly-released Saving the CBC: Balancing Profit and Public Service (Linda Leith Publishing).

Wade Rowland is not a neutral observer. He loves the CBC, at least he loves a CBC which is a well funded, well managed Canadian version of the BBC. Many Canadians would be willing to pay, even pay more, for such a public broadcaster but my sense is that this Conservative government is happy enough to let, even encourage, the CBC to self-destruct. I don't expect this government to, suddenly, privatize the CBC but I do expect them to preside over its dismemberment and eventual, ignoble demise.

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

Let them fade into nothing. Their relevance has faded and I'd rather have tax dollars be going elsewhere. Sink or swim CBC it's on you now!

 

[observor 69]

I have noticed the CBC looking like the BBC, a good thing, but the programming obviously is based on different criteria. As John Doyle discusses in this article on Kirstine Stewart’s departure the organization is plagued with many handicaps that are a challenge for the most motivated manager.

 

[Kirkhill]

Hey all you nay-sayers.

CBC's James Cudmore agrees with me on the Shipbuilding strategy generally and the AOPS in particular.  Congratulations CBC.  You are brilliantly informed and surpassing fair.....  ;D ;D ;D

Until tomorrow.  :nod:

 

[OldSolduer]

They still suck at a lot of other "broadcasting".

 

[PuckChaser]

Congratulations CBC.  You are brilliantly informed and surpassing fair.....  ;D ;D ;D

Broken clock is right twice a day.

 

[a_majoor]

Eliminating public funding for the CBC is not "just" sour grapes, there is a pretty compelling question in this age of high government spending  and debt as to "why" we need institutions like the CBC at all?

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/05/02/tasha-k-2/

Tasha Kheiriddin: A case for smaller government

Tasha Kheiriddin | 13/05/02 | Last Updated: 13/05/01 4:28 PM ET
More from Tasha Kheiriddin

Bill C-60, the federal government’s budget-implementation legislation, gives Cabinet the power to set collective bargaining terms, including wages, for Crown corporations that once operated at arm’s length — such as Canada Post, VIA Rail, and the CBC. It’s a welcome development.

Public sector salaries currently enjoy a 12% wage premium over non-unionized private sector jobs, and a 9% premium over unionized ones, according to research published in April 2013 by the Fraser Institute. That study confirms others published by the Montreal Economic Institute, on the subject of municipal workers in Montreal, in 2012; by the C.D. Howe Institute, on the discrepancy between public and private pensions, in 2008; and by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, on the gap between public and private sector wages, also in 2008.

These inflated public-sector wages make it impossible for governments to contain labour costs. They also create a double-standard for the taxpayers who pay those high salaries, while receiving lower pay for the same jobs in the private sector.

Related
Chris Selley: If we are going to subsidize anything it should be broadband Internet, not mail
Lorne Gunter: Go ahead and take the train, but don’t send me the bill
CBC to cut 650 jobs over three years in wake of federal budget

But opposition parties see more than cost-cutting in the government’s plans — they smell a host of hidden agendas. These include the end of the CBC’s journalistic independence, if not the end of the CBC itself. “These guys have their sights set on the public broadcaster, and as much as the Heritage Minister wants to be the warm and fuzzy face of Heritage for this government, he’s got a den of howling wolves behind him who want to see this thing [the CBC] go,” says NDP Heritage Critic Andrew Cash.

With regard to VIA, rumours of partial privatization have been swirling for over a year, despite government denials, due to the company’s continued need for heavy state subsidies. And when it comes to Canada Post, just last week the Conference Board of Canada issued a report warning that unless the Crown Corporation stopped losing money — by ditching door-to-door delivery, cutting labour costs, or increasing the price of postage — it would be $1-billion in the red by 2020.

Do the Tories really want to chop home mail delivery, cheap train travel and CBC programming two years before a federal election, when they know that a growing demographic — seniors — supports all of the above? Probably not. But the reality is that these industries are changing fast. When, as fellow National Post columnist Jesse Kline points out, commuters can take a five-hour flight from Toronto to Vancouver for under $300, versus an 87-hour train ride costing $650, trimming operations at VIA rail becomes attractive. As for Canada Post, the internet has decimated the carrier’s letter-mail business, yet its government charter obliges it to still provide universal delivery. Meanwhile, its employees rack up 16 days’ worth of absences a year — 60% more than the average Canadian manufacturing employees and 20% higher than the average unionized employee, according to a 2007 study by the C.D.

And then there is the CBC. The question is no longer even whether, in a zillion-channel universe, there is a need for a publicly-funded broadcaster. The question is whether traditional television itself is needed at all, as the internet and mobile technology transform the broadcast universe beyond recognition. Former CBC exec Kirstine Stewart made the point herself by decamping to Twitter Canada this week, telling the Toronto Star that “We are all trying to figure out what the next step is. It’s not necessarily that television on the wall … There are great ways to reinvent content and this a great opportunity to do so. This is the golden age of media.”

The Tories’ plans may well represent a first step toward a rethinking of the role of the state in the mailboxes, rail cars, and televisions of the nation. But this is not a hidden agenda, nor an immediate one. In light of fiscal challenges, and industry changes, it’s what any sensible government should do.

National Post

 

[PPCLI Guy]

In fairness, they got this right:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/story/2013/04/29/edmonton-military-promethean-ram.html

 

[Dirt Digger]

The one thing I can say in support of the CBC?  At least they've maintained their web presence as a free service. 

I'm sure that everyone knows that the Globe & Mail went behind a paywall last year, and seemingly on May 1st, the National Post set up a paywall for "foreign" readers...5 free article per month (I'm a deemed resident posted to the US).    Pretty soon, the CBC is probably going to be the only Canadian news source not charging for access...but then, they take their pound of flesh up front out of the Canadian taxpayer. 

It sure would be great if i could get CBC broadcasting down here without jumping through hoops.  For all of their failures, I'm not looking forward to NBC's coverage of the upcoming Winter Olympics.

 

[The_Falcon]

The one thing I can say in support of the CBC?  At least they've maintained their web presence as a free service. 

I'm sure that everyone knows that the Globe & Mail went behind a paywall last year, and seemingly on May 1st, the National Post set up a paywall for "foreign" readers...5 free article per month (I'm a deemed resident posted to the US).    Pretty soon, the CBC is probably going to be the only Canadian news source not charging for access...but then, they take their pound of flesh up front out of the Canadian taxpayer. 

It sure would be great if i could get CBC broadcasting down here without jumping through hoops.  For all of their failures, I'm not looking forward to NBC's coverage of the upcoming Winter Olympics.

The foreign thing is based on IP address.  Sun Media also has a paywall.  As much as it sucks, I do agree with it.  After all they are business, and business need to make money in order to continue providing their services.  If you go to the store or whatever, generally you have to pay to read the newspaper, this is no different.  If the CBC did set up a paywall then people should have a legit beef, since you know they get tax money to operate and provide their services, on top of what they collect from advertisers.

 

[Jarnhamar]

is this an accurate story by CBC?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2013/05/02/pol-milewski-shipbuilding-design-mystery.html

 

[Edward Campbell]

is this an accurate story by CBC?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2013/05/02/pol-milewski-shipbuilding-design-mystery.html

See the discussions in our own AOPS thread; the CBC seems to be repeating what some of our members are saying.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

is this an accurate story by CBC?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2013/05/02/pol-milewski-shipbuilding-design-mystery.html

I hate that guy as much as the other one we won't talk about here. Even his pompous accent drives me nuts.

See the discussions in our own AOPS thread; the CBC seems to be repeating what some of our members are saying.

Edward,

They are here, on a regular basis, mining the site for information and what they percieve as dirt and disgruntlement amongst the military.

Opinions and posts like the ones people are making (the porn issue) in the WATC sex thread is gold for them. Don't think they won't use it to paint us all as troglodytes if they have a slow news day.

We're a public forum and the press can't be trusted to give a fair unbiased story. Blood and sex sells.

 

[Jarnhamar]

I didn't see that thread, thank you.

Recceguy, I'll send him a nastygram. I'm getting good at them, well I see a lot of them anyways...

 

[Fishbone Jones]

I didn't see that thread, thank you.

Recceguy, I'll send him a nastygram. I'm getting good at them, well I see a lot of them anyways...

Thanks for the thought OZ, but I'm pretty good slicing and dicing with the written word myself, if it becomes an issue that needs attention

 

[a_majoor]

If this gains traction in the United States, then there will be some corresponding pressures on Canada to harmonize with the States as well. This is a political issue, the technology for "a la carte" has existed for decades, and soon the issue may be mooted by broadband streaming services that allow you to watch whatever you want on any divice.

Watch for the political fireworks on both sides of the border:

http://www.businessinsider.com/john-mccain-wants-to-blow-up-the-cable-industry-as-we-currently-know-it-2013-5

John McCain Wants To Blow Up The Cable Industry As We Currently Know It
Jay Yarow | May 9, 2013, 11:16 AM | 3,391 | 21

John McCain is going to release a bill that would dismantle cable as it's currently constructed, Brenden Sasso at The Hill reports.

The legislation would force cable companies and satellite TV providers to give consumers an option to pick and choose which channels they get. This is called "à la carte programming," and it's long been a dream of consumers who only want a handful of channels.
McCain tried to introduce similar legislation in 2006 and it went nowhere.

The TV industry is going to fight this legislation. It likes bundling 300 channels together and forcing consumers to pay a big monthly bill.
In their defense, the bundling allows niche channels to flourish, and it probably is a fair price if you total up all those channels you get.
Still, it's annoying to subsidize the cost of six different versions ESPN if you hate sports. As a consumer it would be great to choose the channels you want and pay a fair price for those channels.

In addition to breaking up the bundles, McCain's bill will prevent big media companies from using broadcast channels as leverage for negotiations with cable companies. So, Disney couldn't tell Comcast it has to pay $8 per subscriber for ESPN if it wants to get access to ABC. Both ABC and ESPN are owned by Disney.

McCain will also try to prevent TV blackouts for sports and protect Aereo, the upstart TV company that delivers TV channels to mobile devices.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/john-mccain-wants-to-blow-up-the-cable-industry-as-we-currently-know-it-2013-5#ixzz2Socfw7rY

 

[Remius]

Not sure that's even necessary.  Like you said, with emerging new ways to stream online, Netflix and YouTube's plan for pay by channel, the Cable companies are feeling the pinch.  they might actually have no choice but to get innovative.  Eventually the market will naturally force them to change.

 

[Edward Campbell]

If this gains traction in the United States, then there will be some corresponding pressures on Canada to harmonize with the States as well. This is a political issue, the technology for "a la carte" has existed for decades, and soon the issue may be mooted by broadband streaming services that allow you to watch whatever you want on any divice.

Watch for the political fireworks on both sides of the border:

http://www.businessinsider.com/john-mccain-wants-to-blow-up-the-cable-industry-as-we-currently-know-it-2013-5

It, à la carte programming, is the most desirable outcome, but it is not clear - not to me anyway - that it will result in lower costs to consumers. The cable and satellite companies will still need to recoup the costs of providing their services - selling useless "bundles" is just a PR trick to make you believe you're getting something for nothing.

It will be harder to do here in Canada - we have both the official language and Canadian culture "police" forces patrolling our telecom/broadcasting industry making sure that we get what is "good for us."

But, even if the average consumer ends up with ⅓ the channels for the same price (s)he will, at least, will get and pay for only the channels (s)he chooses, not what the social-engineers and busybodies decide is "right."

 

[Kirkhill]

But, even if the average consumer ends up with ⅓ the channels for the same price (s)he will, at least, will get and pay for only the channels (s)he chooses, not what the social-engineers and busybodies decide is "right."

Next thing you know people will be deciding which church they want to attend.... heresy.