CBC chat moderator biased!

[james t kirk]

Rex Murphy is one of the very few voices of reason at CBC.

I enjoy Rex on TV, but I find reading his column in the Globe and Mail to be tedious. (Strange I know.)

Rex hits the nail right on the head most of the time, but sometimes, he's a bit too much of an old fogey (or is that Phogie, whatever, you know what I mean.) Rex is getting a bit grumpy old manish in his old age.

Still entertaining though.

 

[Anynym]

For the most part, CBC tries very hard to ensure balance.

They may even believe that to be the case. And I would like to believe that in cases where several submissions made effectively the same point, the selection of which posts would be accepted was more random than punitive.

But when you're in the NDP, presenting the NDP and Green Party views can seem like you're presenting balance.

I don't think there is malice intended, at least not in the majority of cases, but the CBC tends to be staffed by people whose political views come from the left of the Canadian mainstream, and presenting the mainstream as "radical right-wing politics" perhaps strikes them as balanced reporting.

How often, for example, has the CBC talked down Canada's positive contributions on reduction of pollution and GHGs?

 

[luckyjackson]

How often, for example, has the CBC talked down Canada's positive contributions on reduction of pollution and GHGs?

I was kind of nodding my head to your post, until I read this.

Anyway, one would expect to find the clearest example of political bias during a federal election. As the report I posted shows, that isn't the case.

Please don't misunderstand, I agree there is bias. I'm simply pointing that it doesn't exist to any unusual degree at the CBC.

 

[my2cents]

As one poster noted previuosly who worked at CBC, they try not to give a one sided view. It doesn't allways happen to give everyside and others noted examples of this. However when you look at the publicly subsidized "private networks" (yes they get public money also in various forms) they are blatantly bias in their reporting. No one in the media mentioned the fact that the "private" networks are getting the free use of "public" transmitters to broadcast their Olympic coverage to areas they cannot cover even though their bid stated they would cover those areas. So give good coverage to party in power and get a public subsidy. Intersting how millions of dollars in subsidy this way never got mentioned by the private broadcasters involved.
I don't see a problem with critics of CBC since they need the public view to be heard but don't expect the "private" broadcasters to admit they also get help both financially and legally from the taxpayers. Oh yea if you want to see editiorial censorship try and make some comments about the "private" networks on their comment section. Forget about seeing comments that put them in a bad light on thier sites after all they will allways claim to be "private " companies that have a right to censor of course they censor with one had and get public funds from the other. These public funds are in place even before the "tv tax" they are all talking about.

 

[Anynym]

I was kind of nodding my head to your post, until I read this.

Anyway, one would expect to find the clearest example of political bias during a federal election. As the report I posted shows, that isn't the case.

Please don't misunderstand, I agree there is bias. I'm simply pointing that it doesn't exist to any unusual degree at the CBC.

Actually, no. One would expect to find the least bias during a federal election, as there is greater sensitivity and monitoring of what is said, and it's easier to enunciate the views of each political party.

One expects the personal bias of the staff to come across the most clearly when their own guard is down and they don't even realize their bias is showing (or perhaps even that their own position is biased). Especially if one's own bias isn't made obvious by those around you.

 

[moviefan]

As one poster noted previuosly who worked at CBC, they try not to give a one sided view.

That's true, but it doesn't entirely remove the bias.

Think of that round-table show (I've forgotten the name) that Avi Lewis hosted in the '90s. It had producers working on the show who represented a variety of political opinions, and the show tried to line up guests that presented a range of political views. Good for them.

However, the topics discussed always came from a left-of-centre perspective.

For example, they would debate whether or not cuts to government spending, or "cutbacks," were hurting the country. By contrast, they would never have thought to build a show on the question of whether or not Canada is over-governed. That is what I mean by a left-of-centre bias.

I don't know why the CBC denies having a left-wing bias. I think the CBC's audience knows that's the case and is comfortable with it.

 

[my2cents]

That's true, but it doesn't entirely remove the bias.

Think of that round-table show (I've forgotten the name) that Avi Lewis hosted in the '90s. It had producers working on the show who represented a variety of political opinions, and the show tried to line up guests that presented a range of political views. Good for them.

However, the topics discussed always came from a left-of-centre perspective.

For example, they would debate whether or not cuts to government spending, or "cutbacks," were hurting the country. By contrast, they would never have thought to build a show on the question of whether or not Canada is over-governed. That is what I mean by a left-of-centre bias.

I don't know why the CBC denies having a left-wing bias. I think the CBC's audience knows that's the case and is comfortable with it.

There is another thing to consder and that is that sometimes people with other points of view refuse to be on shows so they may try but don't get the players. CBC should accept critics and that is why they have an ombudsperson to deal with complaints of their coverage. Of course with the wide variety of programs it is hard to say you get a chance to watch or hear all programs to get an overall persepective. I agree they are not allways able to give all sides. However my point about the "private networks" being blatantly bias to gain favor of the party in power does not get adressed in the media. They allways act like only CBC gets public money while they are also reaching into our taxpayers wallets.

 

[markvee]

I don't think there is malice intended, at least not in the majority of cases, but the CBC tends to be staffed by people whose political views come from the left of the Canadian mainstream, and presenting the mainstream as "radical right-wing politics" perhaps strikes them as balanced reporting.

I think that the notion of a left-wing/right-wing political spectrum is more damaging than networks with political bias.

The political spectrum should really be from freedom to slavery, but left-wing and right-wing both have pro-freedom and pro-slavery positions:

Left-wing pro-slavery:
Wealth redistribution from rich to poor through taxation and government programs
Interventionist environmental policy
Gun registration and prohibition
Interventionist foreign policy (foreign aid, peacekeeping)

Right-wing pro-slavery:
Moralistic prohibitions such as against marijuana
Interventionist foreign policy (fighting them there so we don't have to fight them here)

Faced with a left-wing/right-wing choice, we always suffer some loss of freedoms.

When there is a change in governance from one wing to the other, the pro-slavery policies tend to get implemented first, and the objectionable pro-slavery policies of the previous government tend to get forgotten rather than undone.

 

[landscaper]

where the hell did slavery come from?????

 

[markvee]

The ends of my political spectrum are opposites. What would you suggest as an opposite to freedom?

 

[Anynym]

where the hell did slavery come from?????

I suspect that MV was trying to suggest that there are political positions to be found across a wide range of political thought which are considered untenable today.

A left/right political spectrum provides a simple and easy to understand commentary on political positions, it is true that it is oversimplistic.

There just aren't popular alternatives, although several multi-dimensional attempts have been made to subdivide the political spectrum, including Political Compass.

None of which changes the points made above regarding bias in the media, intentional or otherwise.

 

[antaeus]

the issue of CBC political bias is simply irrelevant, a non issue, compared to its gross regional bias.

There is palpable hatred of the broadcaster outside of Toronto and a few other of our large urban centers.

The CBC is aware, and addresses it by closing or reducing regional affiliates.


Perhaps the reason CBC chat room moderators censor posts has to do with libel. Media outlets are watched very carefully by many, unmoderated would devolve into libel suits every day. Also, being a media source, probably they are uber-experienced with debates devolving into pedantry, demagoguery, ad hominem; all cheapening their efforts at public interaction.

There was interesting article on similar efforts regarding US White House research into efforts to monitor and control their own public access forums, realizing they'd be immediate candidates for abuse by both mild and extreme individuals and groups. Techniques discussed included the delayed post, automatic vwel or consonant removal of identified trolls, invisible mode - no one sees identified troll's posts except for the identified troll. The delayed post is used by many, it seems very effective but requires a lot of manpower and it's probably a horrible job.

 

[james t kirk]

the issue of CBC political bias is simply irrelevant, a non issue, compared to its gross regional bias.

There is palpable hatred of the broadcaster outside of Toronto and a few other of our large urban centers.

The CBC is aware, and addresses it by closing or reducing regional affiliates.

Interesting because when I'm in the little hick towns all across Canada the one saving grace is always the CBC. Though they are infested with leftists, I actually do support the CBC and would not want to see them changed for the worse.

Even when travelling in Quebec, you can pick up the English Language CBC on your car radio. After I've been on the road in Quebec for 2 weeks, you get into the CBC.

I used to love listening to Sad Goat when I was working in Quebec. Sadly some fool at the CBC cancelled it. Sigh....

 

[my2cents]

the issue of CBC political bias is simply irrelevant, a non issue, compared to its gross regional bias.

There is palpable hatred of the broadcaster outside of Toronto and a few other of our large urban centers.

The CBC is aware, and addresses it by closing or reducing regional affiliates.


Perhaps the reason CBC chat room moderators censor posts has to do with libel. Media outlets are watched very carefully by many, unmoderated would devolve into libel suits every day. Also, being a media source, probably they are uber-experienced with debates devolving into pedantry, demagoguery, ad hominem; all cheapening their efforts at public interaction.

There was interesting article on similar efforts regarding US White House research into efforts to monitor and control their own public access forums, realizing they'd be immediate candidates for abuse by both mild and extreme individuals and groups. Techniques discussed included the delayed post, automatic vwel or consonant removal of identified trolls, invisible mode - no one sees identified troll's posts except for the identified troll. The delayed post is used by many, it seems very effective but requires a lot of manpower and it's probably a horrible job.

Yes regional bias exists. In fact the only reason the English version of CBC exists is because the French side is too popular in Quebec and it wouldn't look good to only have a French CBC federally funded. No Governement is going to tamper with support for the French CBC. However the majority of the Federal money goes to the French side of CBC. The only way the regions will be heard is if they speak up to CBC and demand a return to their own reginal programming.

 

[benstt]

This thread is completely unfair.

Why single out the chat moderator? Everyone at CBC is biased.

For example, the only time a global-warming skeptic gets mentioned on the CBC is when it's in a documentary about the "conspiracies" to undermine Al Gore, or some such foolishness.

I listen to the CBC, and I find they take great care to make sure both sides get an opportunity. If you compare them against the cesspool that is right-wing radio, there is no contest on who is more balanced.

Here's a recent interview on the climate debate. They had this guy on recently:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bjørn_Lomborg

Quote:
In 1998, Lomborg published four essays about the state of the environment in the leading Danish newspaper Politiken, which according to him "resulted in a firestorm debate spanning over 400 articles in major metropolitan newspapers."[2]

In 2001, he attained significant attention by publishing The Skeptical Environmentalist, a controversial book whose main thesis is that many of the most-publicized claims and predictions on environmental issues are wrong.


He was on this show:

http://www.cbc.ca/thecurrent/2009/200912/20091201.html

The Current for December 01, 2009

Munk Debates

Next Monday, the most important climate negotiations in 12 years will begin in Copenhagen. The goal of the United Nations conference is to lay the groundwork for a global treaty to cap greenhouse gas emissions and stem climate change. But in the lead-up to the conference, a debate remains over how grave the threat of global warming is, how much needs to done to fight it, and at what cost.

Those questions will be on the table at the Munk Debates in Toronto tonight. George Monbiot and Canadian Green Party Leader Elizabeth May will be on one side. Bjorn Lomborg and Lord Nigel Lawson will be on the other. And they'll debate this proposition: Be it resolved: Climate change is mankind's defining crisis and demands a commensurate response.

Two of the participants joined us this morning for a warm-up for that debate. Bjorn Lomborg is a professor at the Copenhagen Business School and the author of The Skeptical Environmentalist and Cool It. George Monbiot is a columnist with The Guardian newspaper and the author of Heat: How to Stop The World from Burning and The Age of Consent: A Manifest for a New World Order. They were both in Toronto but in separate studios at the request of the Munk Debates.

They'll be participating in the Munk Debates on this subject tonight, along with Elizabeth May and Lord Nigel Lawson. The event will be web-cast on the Munk Debates web site at www.munkdebates.com and on cbc.ca. Ideas will broadcast the debate on CBC Radio One next Wednesday.

 

[luckyjackson]

Actually, no. One would expect to find the least bias during a federal election, as there is greater sensitivity and monitoring of what is said, and it's easier to enunciate the views of each political party.

One expects the personal bias of the staff to come across the most clearly when their own guard is down and they don't even realize their bias is showing (or perhaps even that their own position is biased). Especially if one's own bias isn't made obvious by those around you.

Well, that's been my point from the beginning of this discussion, that if bias exists, it is of the personal kind that exists everywhere. The CBC always looks quite good when compared to other media on this issue.

 

[Anynym]

The CBC always looks quite good when compared to other media on this issue.

You're entitled to that opinion.

I wholeheartedly disagree. And I can back up my opinion with many studies and facts, although I choose not to do so at this time. One of the details is the amount and manner of censorship which is exercised over listeners who choose to have their own opinions heard when they conflict with the operator. And as we've seen in this thread, CBC is quite selective in what they allow.

 

[my2cents]

You're entitled to that opinion.

I wholeheartedly disagree. And I can back up my opinion with many studies and facts, although I choose not to do so at this time. One of the details is the amount and manner of censorship which is exercised over listeners who choose to have their own opinions heard when they conflict with the operator. And as we've seen in this thread, CBC is quite selective in what they allow.

Yes this is true with every media. Every radio station and media outlet does this to keep their message out there. One difference with CBC is that they have an ombudsperson to deal with an opposite view not being heard. Of course it doesn't allways resolve the issue. But the "privates" have an agenda with no department to deal with a lack of opposing views being allowed on their programs. Like I said before the "privates" also get public money but are very silent about it. CTV is using public transmitters to broadcast their signal to parts of the country they cannot reach even though that was part of their agreement when they got the Olympic broadcast. Now they are being allowed to use public transmitters saving them millions by not having to install transmitters themselves.The public gets not one cent for this so it is nothing more than a hand out but you will never hear about this in the "private" networks. This is a prime example of a private broadcaster benefiting from putting a good spin on all that the governemnt is doing.
We all know CBC is in our wallets and we have a right to complain but I am tired of private broadcasters getting millions from taxpayers both finanacially and through regulations to help them. CBC bias sure but private broadcasters are more thna bias they are verging on propoganda to benefit from the government.