Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I wish people in the US and Canada were required to listen to NPR and CBC Radio for at least a couple hours each day. I know that is unreasonable or maybe even illegal, but we sure would have alot more intelligent and informed folks in both countries than we do currently.
That would at least be more sellable in the court of public opinion than my personal diabolical plan to have five basic multiple choice "civics" questions on all election ballots. You don't get enough of them right... your vote doesn't count!
The model we have is far from perfect, equitable and fair however.. For example, Toronto Pearson pays 66% of the rents paid to the Feds by airports in the NAP even though it only accounts for 35 percent of the traffic in the country amongst NAP airports.
Perfect? No. This article gives an idea of the differences though.
That's a nice observation. When I first moved here, I thought the evening news on CBC/CTV was somewhat boring and limiting. I mean, where's the hype? where are the 24-hour "breaking-news" headlines? I recently started listening to radio (CBC Radio), and it suddenly reminded me of my favorite station in America - NPR. The announcers are light-hearted yet professional, and the news content has a great mix of local and world news and lots of in-depth analysis, and very little commercials. It's just a really valuable and high quality public service that we all should cherish.
I LOVE CBC radio. It's a shame though what is happening though.
As regards pickup trucks, it depends on where you go. I'm in southern Alberta, where "pickup truck" is often synonymous with "family car," which means they are all over the place The trucks are often customized in some way, and lovingly cared for, and it is obvious that personal-transport pickups (as opposed to a contractor's work truck) have never done a lick of work in their life. But the owners aren't rednecks, at least not as we understand American rednecks to be.
In terms of airports, I've never known a time when the public had access to gate departure areas in Canadian airports. Even before the introduction of security checkpoints in about 1972 or so, the public was always denied access to the gate area--oh, they could be outside it, but the only way you could get anywhere near the gate was if you held a boarding pass for the flight. The old Terminal 1 (now demolished) at Toronto had fences preventing access, and a guard who checked boarding passes. I well remember Mom, Sis, and I waving goodbye to my Dad across those fences, when we took Dad to the airport for a business trip.
Although I saw it in the movies, I was still surprised to see, when I got older and did a lot of travelling myself, that the public in the US could get through security and go right near the gate, even though they may only be meeting a passenger from an incoming flight. In Canada, post-1972, you did not get through security at all, unless you held a boarding pass for an outbound flight.
I always found it odd that anyone could walk up to the plane in some US airport. The last time I remember having that happen was in 1998 at the Palm Springs airport. My father was able to stand right at the bottom of the stairway connected to the plane to see me off.
I guess it just depends on what you are used to.
How about the National Film Board of Canada? I LOVE their films! I wish there were something like that in the US. I also wish the US ran films from Canada on TV, maybe on public television. It would be a relief from boring Brit sit-coms and drama.
I wish people in the US and Canada were required to listen to NPR and CBC Radio for at least a couple hours each day. I know that is unreasonable or maybe even illegal, but we sure would have alot more intelligent and informed folks in both countries than we do currently.
CBC is just as slanted as FOX, MSNBC or any other new channel. It's just a matter of agreeing or disagreeing with their material. They do the same thing as FOX where they set up a debate on a topic with a foregone conclusion, and don't give the already-appointed "wrong" side a fair shake. They set up one side to win and hammer it in that the right thing to do is to support that side. You can't be a debater on CBC and expect to be given a fair hand to criticize something like multiculturalism, feminism, or Quebec independence. The moderator is anything but impartial; he already has the side he's on and pushes the "right" side to appear morally upstanding. To boot, the station is clearly anti-Harper and pro-Liberal. I just don't see much of a difference between FOX and CBC, if anything CBC is more insidious since it doesn't face the same widespread criticism as FOX, and one is forced to support it through taxation whether they want to or not. Here's a good example:
Regardless of what "side" one supports, it is quite obvious that Mark Steyn is "wrong" from the start. He is asked tough questions, has his morals questioned by moderator, the moderator plainly gives El Rashidy his support. El Rashidy is given far more leeway to answer questions with murky rhetoric, in fact he doesn't even need to directly answer the questions being posed yet the moderator makes no effort to push him on the issue. There is as much of a double standard as anything on FOX news, the only difference is that it is coming from the other side of the political spectrum. CBC, like every other new station, is inherently biased and agenda-based.
CBC is just as slanted as FOX, MSNBC or any other new channel. It's just a matter of agreeing or disagreeing with their material. They do the same thing as FOX where they set up a debate on a topic with a foregone conclusion, and don't give the already-appointed "wrong" side a fair shake. They set up one side to win and hammer it in that the right thing to do is to support that side. You can't be a debater on CBC and expect to be given a fair hand to criticize something like multiculturalism or feminism. The moderator is anything but impartial; he already has the side he's on and pushes the "right" side to appear morally upstanding. To boot, the station is clearly anti-Harper and pro-Liberal. I just don't see much of a difference between FOX and CBC, if anything CBC is more insidious since it doesn't face the same widespread criticism as FOX, and one is forced to support it through taxation whether they want to or not. Here's a good example:
Regardless of what "side" one supports, it is quite obvious that Mark Steyn is "wrong" from the start. He is asked tough questions, has his morals questioned by moderator, the moderator plainly gives El Rashidy his support. El Rashidy is given far more leeway to answer questions with murky rhetoric, in fact he doesn't even need to directly answer the questions being posed yet the moderator makes no effort to push him on the issue. There is as much of a double standard as anything on FOX news, the only difference is that it is coming from the other side of the political spectrum. CBC, like every other new station, is inherently biased and agenda-based.
Well that particular show you cited isn't a news panel. It is an opinion based show with partisan panelists and partisan view points. Of course it is going to be slanted.
I think most of us are talking about CBC's other programs, especially its nightly radio programs and standard evening news, which are very short, highly quality, and cover a wide range of domestic and international news topics. It's not so different from NPR in America.
Lol. Of course CBC is anti-Harper. Harper is literally in the midst of cutting away all of CBC's funding. You think those thousands of laid off workers, their colleagues, and editors are going to speak kindly of Harper while he uses the "saved tax dollars from CBC" to prolong another year of war in Syria? Not trying to provoke a partisan left-right debate here, but if you were in CBC's shoes, what would you have done? I mean, no one is forcing you or I to watch or listen to CBC - they don't have a monopoly on news and there's plenty of alternatives for your viewing reading/pleasure in both Canada and America if you feel CBC is too left-wing.
CBC is just as slanted as FOX, MSNBC or any other new channel. It's just a matter of agreeing or disagreeing with their material. They do the same thing as FOX where they set up a debate on a topic with a foregone conclusion, and don't give the already-appointed "wrong" side a fair shake. They set up one side to win and hammer it in that the right thing to do is to support that side. You can't be a debater on CBC and expect to be given a fair hand to criticize something like multiculturalism or feminism. The moderator is anything but impartial; he already has the side he's on and pushes the "right" side to appear morally upstanding. To boot, the station is clearly anti-Harper and pro-Liberal. I just don't see much of a difference between FOX and CBC, if anything CBC is more insidious since it doesn't face the same widespread criticism as FOX, and one is forced to support it through taxation whether they want to or not. Here's a good example:
Regardless of what "side" one supports, it is quite obvious that Mark Steyn is "wrong" from the start. He is asked tough questions, has his morals questioned by moderator, the moderator plainly gives El Rashidy his support. El Rashidy is given far more leeway to answer questions with murky rhetoric, in fact he doesn't even need to directly answer the questions being posed yet the moderator makes no effort to push him on the issue. There is as much of a double standard as anything on FOX news, the only difference is that it is coming from the other side of the political spectrum. CBC, like every other new station, is inherently biased and agenda-based.
I agree with what you are saying, but I find a huge difference in programming between CBC TV and CBC Radio. There is some overlap of course, but CBC radio seems to cut out alot of the opinion BS and cut straight to reporting the news. I especially appreciate their International coverage, which is poor on CBC TV (IMHO).
So my praise was solely focused on CBC Radio (1 & 2) not CBC TV broadcasts.
Last edited by edwardsyzzurphands; 04-01-2015 at 10:35 AM..
So my praise with solely focused on CBC Radio (1 & 2) not CBC TV broadcasts.
Fair enough, I am not familiar with CBC radio at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bostonkid123
Lol. Of course CBC is anti-Harper. Harper is literally in the midst of cutting away all of CBC's funding. You think those thousands of laid off workers, their colleagues, and editors are going to speak kindly of Harper while he uses the "saved tax dollars from CBC" to prolong another year of war in Syria? Not trying to provoke a partisan left-right debate here, but if you were in CBC's shoes, what would you have done? I mean, no one is forcing you or I to watch or listen to CBC - they don't have a monopoly on news and there's plenty of alternatives for your viewing reading/pleasure in both Canada and America if you feel CBC is too left-wing.
Regardless of their personal feelings against Harper, when these feelings come in to how they present the news then I can not call it unbiased. It's not much different than FOX being clearly anti-Obama; they probably have their reasons too, but it doesn't make it unbiased.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bostonkid123
I mean, no one is forcing you or I to watch or listen to CBC - they don't have a monopoly on news and there's plenty of alternatives for your viewing reading/pleasure in both Canada and America if you feel CBC is too left-wing.
In Canada the news media is heavily biased to the left. There was Sun news, but it was closed down. The problem with this is that even when you can choose to watch different stations, news outlets like CBC still help mold mainstream Canadian thought. The lack of right-ish alternatives makes Canada a difficult place to challenge the status quo or bring up ideas that go against the grain. As annoying as it can be in the US, it is easier to disagree with something like multiculturalism (as in the video) without being discredited as morally corrupt. FOX news, while being something of a joke, still offers an outlet for a particular demographic to vent; and it it's counterpart is MSNBC which is equally comical but nonetheless a counterbalance. In Canada there is no counterbalance, you agree with the status quo or else keep it to yourself lest your morals come into question. It isn't an atmosphere of free thought and innovation but rather one of conformity and sameness.
That would at least be more sellable in the court of public opinion than my personal diabolical plan to have five basic multiple choice "civics" questions on all election ballots. You don't get enough of them right... your vote doesn't count!
Yeah Section 3 may get in the way of that a bit. But cant say I disagree with you on principle!
To expand it a bit, I think that people in other countries should only have access to certain stations Internationally when they are following the news elsewhere. Imagine how unwarped peoples views would be of other cultures if they were actually allowed to focus on the facts and form their opinion from there? PLus for selfish reasons I could totally just avoid all the stupid questions about Healthcare and Gun Rights when I am in Canada...or the stupid questions about Canadian socialism here in the US.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
But cant say I disagree with you on principle!
