— Feature, Musings —12.02.2021 06:08 PM
Fucking check it out, woke folk!
The CBC has gone insane. Truly.
Check this out.
— Feature, Musings —12.02.2021 06:08 PM
The CBC has gone insane. Truly.
Check this out.
It would be interesting to know where exactly this is coming from. I’ve never been a knee-jerk CBC basher, though I’m not blind to their biases. But they clearly have some news editorial people who are on the social justice warrior program, and need to go back to remedial journalism school. What’s particularly concerning is that the CBC is starting to turn off moderates because of their obvious political agenda.
Part of the CBC’s mandate is national unity. If you become a partisan shill, that’s not doing national unity.
“…the CBC is starting to turn off moderates…”
BINGO!
This is such a good piece. I have shared on Facebook, and with many of my friends and family.
The CBC comment section is far worse regarding banning words.
You can call anyone or everyone “qanon”, but “Tru-anon” is banned.
Using “CBC” will usually get a comment disabled, as will the words “guidelines”, “terms and conditions”, “moderators”, and the names of several former Liberal MPs.
The most ironic though?
The word “comment” is also banned from their comment section.
It’s all about Virtue Signalling turned into a witch hunt. Here is a word that isn’t on the list but can no longer be used — Woman.
The only time I listen to or watch the CBC is when I am at the cottage and can’t get any other reception or I feel sleepy and want to enter into a short term coma or if I want to know the history of knitting.
Carlin nailed it.
Personally, I couldn’t give two-shits what the CBC does or doesn’t do woke-wise. Everyone already knows that they’ve long ago descended to the level of absolutely zero credibility when they more than willingly decided to prostitute themselves and shill for the federal Liberals.
The CBC showed themselves to be the Fox of the North and everyone working over there already knows that they are nothing but a journo laughingstock these days.
They are also setting themselves up for privatization or defunding whenever Conservatives return to office. They should realize Liberals won’t be in power forever and if more reasonable, Tories likely will leave them alone as political suicide. But this type of nonsense puts a target on them. BBC may have a slight left of centre bias, but they are still a professional news service and actually do a good job thus why even British Tories won’t touch them.
I think the CBC’s editorial bias these days is primarily a matter of editorial selection more than anything else. I thought about it this way the other day: their selection of stories that they run mostly reflects what would interest a feminist university professor living in the Annex in Toronto. It way too often does not take into account what would interest a trucker living in Vegreville, Alberta.
And that’s a problem, because CBC is supposed to be a national broadcaster reflecting the interests of all Canadians.
The relevance of the State Broadcaster diminishes as we speak. This would normally be of no significance, but because the CBC is a state funded entity, it actually matters. It matters not because the majority of Canadians who don’t watch or listen to the CBC are losing out on anything, it matters because the CBC competes so unfairly with all of the other media in Canada. Why should the CBC have paid advertising? That shouldn’t be allowed. I can’t recall the last time I watched CBC television, and very rarely listen to either Radio 1 or 2 anymore. I wouldn’t be surprised to find out that the CBC is actually trying to drive all of the other large media organizations in Canada out of business.
“Blackmail has nothing to do with skin color.”
I would suggest that none of these do. At their heart, the origin of the word isn’t at issue here, but rather what connotation we’ve attached in these latter, doomed days. This cannot be anything more or less than a direct and complete texposure of critical race theory; the new emperor’s clothes are just as transparent.
The idea is that race has to do with everything, and everything has to do with race. And if we throw out language that had (past tense, note) to do with some things racial, or could have to do with them, we’ve lost language at large. We’ve lost philosophy if we cannot discuss things other than the prevailing winds.
The only thing that remains if we can’t speak certain things (now, in the past or in the future) is that we’d just have to keep our damned mouths shut.
And that’s the point.
Just curious, Chief Magistrate. Would you have recommended that Alec Baldwin participate in the interview that he did last Thursday with George Stephanopoulos?
No frigging way
Agree. It is impossible for anyone to not imagine him as a Hollywood actor playing a role. The interview amplified that fact. It looked like a movie. The only chance his appearance in court would work is if that was the only / singular moment he talked about it. His team should have told him to STFU and wait for the trial. He needs Marie Henein.
Again, I being the dumbest virus in the Lab and
feeling rather cruel saying this, but my immediate reaction to the interview was Make-Up. The bags below Baldwin’s eyes appeared to lack any effort to mitigate them. That bothered me throughout the entire interview. It suggests to me, and this may be totally unfair, that these bags were purposely neglected to highlight remorse. Which I guess makes sense. If that is true then I kind a question the purpose of the interview. I think he may have received very poor counsel. I really feel for the victims and Baldwin and I think form follows function. He should have waited for the completion of the investigations.
Innocent III,
I’d didn’t see it but it’s my understanding that only an armorer or a prop master can physically load a weapon with a so-called “cold” round. Is that accurate? And if it is, where does Baldwin come into the equation other than by firing the supposedly “cold” round? Perhaps there’s an element of where to actually point a cold gun that comes into play but I know nothing about that.
It’s time to defund the CBC!
That’s where I part company with you, even though I’m not blind to their biases. I do think steps should be taken though to try to ensure that their editorial mandate is one of journalistic objectivity and not advocacy.
The internet does love an echo chamber, so I feel compelled to play devil’s advocate a bit…While I am just as tired as the next person about ultra-sensitivity over everything from whether it is still okay to watch Manhattan or read Celine or the way large powerful media groups, from Netflix to farther down the food chain, the CBC, feel compelled to protect us from everything from Gone with the Wind to Fawlty Towers episodes, I am equally tired of aging members of my generation getting their proverbial “knickers in a twist” (can I say that? answers on a dollar store postcard please) over “wokesterism,” something which seems to preoccupy media types, but precious few civilians. In the particular case of Canada’s national broadcaster’s misguided attempts to upgrade their Style Guide, this issue smells a tad nothing burger (a cliche as well, but I am being lazy). I am sure at least everyone on the panel is is aware of reference guides like Canadian Press style guide, which has evolved with the times, with its running theme of persuading journalists to avoid cliches, use language with precision and yes, try to stand out and hey, try not to alienate a far more diverse audience than existed than when MTV stopped being a music channel or since Kurt Cobain died. I would probably be more sympathetic to the complaints of the anti-woke if they were less selective in their defence of free expression, but given the fact all four of you on the this broadcast are essentially in agreement about the Robespierre-like reign of terror of this latest clumsy CBC initiative (no, more clumsy in many ways than most corporate decisions, but at least one trying to make sense of a tedious line of debate), it would be nice to hear someone you know dissent a little. Call me old fashioned, but I miss the days when William F. Buckley Jr. could host a show like Firing Line and continually have a parade of guests who he elegantly disagreed with – everyone from James Baldwin to Allard Lowenstein and Allen Ginsberg – but the cumulative effect was not of mock outrage and clickbait, but actual discussion and debate. So while I share some of the sentiments exchanged, it would have been nice if of the four of you, one person was defending the CBC position or at least articulating why it has such traction instead of just sounding like you are all about to order another round somewhere in a chic bistro near Yorktown.
Gore Vidal kicked William F. Buckley’s ego all over America when he mopped the floor with him in an interview.
I’m super happy Bill Buckley is not annoying me anymore with his arrogance, ignorance, and appearances on television.
Bill Buckley was a offensive miscreant IMHO. And I will always appreciate Gore Vidal for what he did to him and his ego on television.
RW
Opinions differ and if memory serves, Firing Line continued to air long after the 1968 Democratic Convention. Having met Vidal briefly and even exchanged a couple of letters with, I can say safely say that in terms of snobbish elitism, albeit wittily and elegantly expressed, he was arguably the better master compared to Buckley.
Bill Buckley had flaws to be sure, but he was a saint compared to today’s Trumpsters. And there are many examples of how incredibly principled Buckley could be. For example, he championed the innocence of two of Malcolm X’s accused assassins, who were recently cleared of his murder.
There are positions Buckley took that I totally disagree with, but it’s not fair at all to simply paint him with one colour. There were a lot of sides to the guy, some of them quite admirable.
Amen.
RW
The mainstream media is now going after the Conservative MP from Peterborough because she swore on camera last year, well before she was elected.
This is the tragic state of Canadian media, folks.
https://twitter.com/davidakin/status/1467177635738435585
I actually LOVED that rant…. I don’t agree with her politics – not for one moment… Not even sure what she was talking about specifically but…. *how she said it* was just perfect. It was a rare moment of unvarnished truth from a public official. We’ve all had these oddball explosive emotional moments built up by / caused by COVID 19 and we can all relate at a visceral level. At that moment… she didn’t just represent her riding…. she represented all of Canada…. she represented the world.
“Get woke, go broke” doesn’t apply when you’re funded by the taxpayer.
I’d love to see CBC go full PBS/NPR. In this era of on-demand and streaming programming, they should stop chasing ad dollars by churning out the same unfunny sitcoms and hackneyed dramas we can already watch on other channels. Focus on turning out quality ad-free product, and people who will support it with their wallets. PBS and NPR produce far higher quality material with far less public funding.
They should open up their books and show how they spend the 1.5 billion they are handed by the taxpayer!
I think I missed the part where the CBC said that no other media should use those words. Does anyone have a link? Because that video just sounded like Sun Media decided that the CBC was not only updating their style guide, but making an attempt to apply that style guide to the rest of published media. And obviously, that’s something they have no control over, unless Sun Media is conflating the CRTC with the CBC somehow.