From the bowels of rubbletv?

Urgh.

Our esteemed blogging colleague Montreal Simon wrote this:

There's a strange and disturbing story circulating quietly on the internet. It was forwarded to me by someone I trust.
And it seems to show that the CBC wrote a story claiming that Stephen Harper was thinking about conscripting young Canadians if he is re-elected.

Disturbing, yet plausible since it's been demonstrated that Harper is a mendacious warmonger and profiteer (politically, yes - personally, that's not known) from MASSIVE military weapons sales to Saudi Arabia.

Tyrants have for centuries used mandatory military recruitment aka conscription to legally control young people and to counter high unemployment rates. Some libertarians even defend it as a "pillar of freedom". 

Though it's claimed the dubious item was posted on a CBC website, then withdrawn, there isn't any google cache links to substantiate this.

So, a twitter storm erupted about this purported CBC story.  The only Hill reporter to respond was a *junior journalist* who provided some background with regard to the item, as he sneered at those who try to keep abreast of political issues.

Earlier, Ling had said:

So, an email was sent to the Parliamentary Press Gallery members list.  Fuzzy Wuzzy observed:

Isn't anyone curious about where that purported CBC blogpost — which has now been dismissed as an April 1st prank and hoax — originated?

In addition to the claim that Harper would introduce conscription AFTER he is re-elected, there are some odd details, as fern hill points out:

That made me think: things have not gone well for Levant since the plug was pulled on StunTV.

He has indulged in his usual bullying, slanderous, hissy-fits on Twitter:

That was deleted, along with the nasty little rant he linked to, since it might be actionable.  Levant is intimately familiar with defamation suits.

What if Levant had been asked, as a favour by one of Harper's more devious back-room operatives, say... Jenni Byrne, to plant some vicious little item that, were it used by members of the Opposition parties or CPC critics, could be deployed to discredit any future legitimate information presented?

I can imagine that Levant, desperate for the media attention and brownie points, might jump at such opportunity.  A trifecta!  Smear the CBC for allegedly caving in to political pressure.  Test the public response to the circonscription notion.

And what about that allegedly fictitious, juicy detail about Stevie and Bibi?

But according to two reliable sources — both close friends of Baird — it was during a special closed-door meeting with Baird, Harper and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in January 2014 — on the third day of Harper's four-day trip to Israel — that Harper discussed the possibility of a conscription bill for 18-year-old men and women, based on the Israeli model.

Remember, Levant's father was one of the many schnorrers who went to Israel with Harper.

So, if anyone dared to deploy that particular bit of colourful information about a private Stevie/Bibi convo, Levant might weigh in as official debunker — amply weaponized with confidential Con sources as well as his own propensity to quickly switch from bully tactics to victim mode in order to shriek "anti-semitism".

Sheer speculation.  But to paraphrase Levant (on Lac-Mégantic): "It would be irresponsible not to speculate on these matters."

UPDATE: Montreal Simon articulates why the hoax has a very plausible resonance to it.

#DefundAbortion Report 2: MASSIVE Win for Sane Majority!

The Twitter air war between defunders and defenders started slowly with fetus fetishists using their supplied talking points from Campaign Lie.

FACT: Canadian taxpayers fund at least $80 million every year for the killing of children in the womb

FACT: There is a severe shortage of family doctors, nurses and funding for elder care and for treatment of autistic children across Canada

FACT: Abortion is an elective procedure that is not medically necessary

FACT: Over 96% of abortions are performed for convenience as a back-up birth control method

Are you ok with that?

Basically, we are buying birth control for slutty sluts with money desperately needed elsewhere for your parents and special needs children.

Conclusion: We must get abortion out of the healthcare system.

The defenders countered in classic hi-jack style, using the format and hashtag of the opposition.

#DefundAbortion = Make women pay, sometimes with their lives. https://t.co/mkjbX5S8kT

— U of C Freethinkers (@uofcfreethinker) October 3, 2013

This is my fave and probably went zooming rightover the heads of the defunders.

#DefundAbortion because churches are sick of all their tax dollars going towards it

— chris p cream (@chris_p_cream) October 3, 2013

Later, defenders got into counter-arguments.

Some defunders thought they were cleverly co-opting the language of the sane people and referred to abortion as 'choice' with the gotcha -- 'Well, it' my choice NOT to fund your choice.'

I tried this out to some success.

Do you have children? By choice? We all paid for your pre-natal care, their birth, their healthcare.

If we shld #DefundAbortion bc pregncy is not illness, then we shouldnt fund your babybirthing either. See? Stupid argument #DefendAbortion

— ray bb (@evamaud) October 3, 2013

When they tried 'the money is needed elsewhere' gambit, defenders replied with: yabbut, what about costs of surgical care for botched back-alley abortions, costs of birthing extra babies, subsequent healthcare, education for them?

That was greeted with crickets.

To the abortion is a conscience issue, I shouldn't have to pay for it trope, defenders responded with lessons on how taxation works.

Again, crickets.

If defunders didn't ignore defenders completely, they put up the typical and tedious last-ditch retort, shrieking 'abortion is murder' and quoting bible verses.

Throughout, the many defenders were witty, reasonable, and relentless.

Of the warring hashtags, #DefendAbortion was trending higher than #DefundAbortion all afternoon, joined later by #DefendChoice, which also trended higher than Defund.

This is particularly remarkable because the defenders usually used BOTH tags (to get their ripostes in the faces of fetus fetishists), while defunders used only their own tag.

So, even with a boost from defenders, the Twitter War was clearly won by the sane people.

Later, defunders posted pix and media reports of the on-the-ground effort, cleverly billed in advance as 'mini-rallies'.

Alissa Golob, the main organizer, called this one 'awesome'.

Organizers said as many as 13 people took part in the one-hour demonstration.

Others were less awesomely attended. Someone posted a photo of an event at Cheri DiNovo's office in Toronto where the protesters (5) outnumbered the stacked printed signs.

On Twitter, @HisFeministMama reported her one-woman counter demonstration there.



Here's her blogpost about the experience. Go read. This was awesome.

From most accounts, the 'mini-ralllies' would have been better labelled 'micro-rallies'.

Except at the Manitoba legislature (bold mine).

A pro-life protest against health-care funding for abortions in Manitoba drew more than their own supporters to a demonstration at the provincial legislature today.

Pro-choice supporters from the women’s rights and labour movement used social media to counter the planned event, and all together more than 200 people spent a noisy lunch-hour chanting slogans at each other over the polarizing debate.

Pro-choice numbers were easily three times the number of the supporters at the pro-life event.

And finally, I want to report on and laud a media report that demonstrates some sensitivity to pro-choice's complaint about media treatment of the abortion issue.

From a brief report by CBC also reporting on the Manitoba event.

Anti-abortionists assembled on the grounds of the Manitoba Legislative Building on Thursday for a planned protest only to be outnumbered but pro-choice activists.

'Anti-abortionists'. Not 'pro-lifers'.

But best was the following sentence -- I repeat, in a very short piece.

Abortion is a legal, approved medical procedure in Canada and has been since 1988.

Beauty, eh?

That sentence, or one like it, should appear in every single report on abortion in Canada.

Legal, approved, medical, and settled for 25 years.

Or as we at DJ! might put it: 'Abortion is a done deal in Canada. Get the fuck over it.'

Final thoughts:
I think some eyes were opened by this exercise. Some people, both neutral on or largely ignorant of the issue, were surprised at the very existence of this tiny minority of extremists. All of whom were totally anti-choice/anti-women, NOT as they tried desperately to spin it, merely concerned citizens.

And some of the same people and others were shocked by this blatant neo-liberal attack on Canadian healthcare.

They recognized the unholy alliance of neo-libs manipulating idiots in the drive to privatize.

All in all, I'd say, this was a MASSIVE win for the sane people.

Canadians are not stupid. Fetus fetishists would be well-advised to stop treating us as if we were.


Part I of DJ!'s takeaway.

The Glass Closet

I'm a little late to this party.

On September 20, Andrea Houston broke this story under the heading 'Why is the CBC censoring Canadians to protect John Baird?'

When a producer from CBC’s The Current asked if I would appear on the show to discuss the politics of “outing” closeted politicians who work against the fight for gay rights, I didn’t hesitate in accepting. 

And I wasn’t alone. CBC also asked playwright and Xtra contributor Brad Fraser, as well as Roy Mitchell, activist and host of Roynation.

But, in the end, none of us appeared on the Sept 17 program. The producers wanted to ensure that there would be no mention of Canada’s Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird.

“The implications of this whole thing is really horrifying,” Fraser says. “Our tax-payer funded national broadcaster doing this, it stinks to high heaven.”

In an email exchange, producer Gord Westmacott told Fraser that he must “hold back” from mentioning the names of any specific politicians on air because Baird “has made the choice not to talk publicly about it." 

The story goes on to explain the back and forth of the pusillanimous discussion between Canadian gay activists and the Canadian public broadcaster's scaredy-cats, with multiple references and links to stories about Baird's quite openly gay life, including one with the fabulous phrase 'glass closet'. As in, Baird lives in a glass closet.

OK, I geddit. The CBC is so terrified of further CON cuts that they don't want to rock the boat.

But jeebers, Baird's gayness has been a open secret for nearly two decades.

He first got elected to the Ontario legislature in 1995. My downtown elitist gay pals were soon falling all over each other to tell more and more outrageous stories of where, when, and with whom Baird had been spotted in various (in)famous gay venues.

Of course, I don't know if any of those hilarious stories were actually true, but my pals and their pals were agreed and emphatic on one point -- John Baird is gay -- as has been documented many, many times since.

OK, I also get the fact that Canadians mostly don't give a shit about the sex lives of politicians. And that's good.

But for the CBC to censor itself and Canadians to keep an open secret 'secret' is simply disgusting.

Self-Censorship

Friends of the CBC are fighting back on the Harper Regime's political interference with a very clever ad, which also serves as a quick summary of this government's crimes against democracy.




While the group has the dough to pay for broadcast, the CBC won't air them.

A new ad campaign to “Free the CBC” from political interference will not air on the public broadcaster’s programs, say representatives from the non-profit media watchdog group that created the commercials.

“I’m a little surprised and disappointed that they wouldn’t take our money for the ads,” said Friends of Canadian Broadcasting spokesperson Ian Morrison. “It proves our point a little bit about the nature of the problem.”

I'd agree with Mr Morrison there.

Or, as William Burroughs put it: 'A functioning police state needs no police.'

Canadians don't want to see the government meddle with our CBC either.

Morrison adds that results from a recent Nanos poll – also released Monday – show that Canadians care about the CBC and its independence from government. In an online survey of 1,000 Canadians, respondents were asked about their views on government’s intentions to “take direct control of the wages and working conditions of all CBC employees.” The majority — 81 per cent — said the CBC should remain independent from government while 12 per cent said they agreed with the government’s intentions. The remaining respondents were unsure where they stood on the issue.

Shame on you, CBC.

Bloviatin' on the CBC

Yesterday morning on the Sunday Edition, Michael Enright bloviated on the Abortion Debate (starting at 3:23, running to 7:25).

I made some notes:

Parliament is a house of debate, highest temple of debate in the country

Parliament should be able to debate on any subject

Bertha Wilson

Abortion is the most divisive, radioactive in US politics, we don't want this here

Parliament should debate any and all ideas

Limiting debate would reduce the power of Parliament, democracy itself

I was yelling at him throughout. Well, except at the very end about reducing the power of Parliament when I snorted tea out my nose.

M. Enright has drunk the KoolAid. Let's straighten him out, shall we?

Alternatively, there's a place for comments -- which are public after all -- here.

Damn. I just commented there, but didn't copy it first and now it's in 'pre-moderation' limbo. I'll come back with it, if/when it is approved.

h/t Niles

ADDED: CBC allowed my comment.

Really, Michael?

Parliament should be able to debate everything? Including Woodworth's disingenuous attempt to muddy the distinction between biological human and legal person with the sole purpose of recriminalizing abortion?

Parliament should debate the curtailing of some people's rights?

Because that's what this is about. Endowing fetuses with rights deprives women, aka incubators in this view, of their rights to autonomy.

This is known as a zero-sum game.

Let's have Parliament debate the rights of bloviating, entitled old CBC hacks to sully my morning with ill-considered baloney, shall we?

Going too far - or satirical honesty?

Harper's CPC government ministers lied in Parliament about the F-35 procurement process.

CON MPs have started petitions against the CBC.

The CBC and Radio-Canada - unlike StunTV, the Sun tabloids and other Quebecor infotainment media products - has reported on the investigations of a number of CPC initiatives which may eventually lead to criminal charges being laid against the party, particularly with regard to electoral fraud, voter suppression and other illegal activities including corruption at the highest levels.

Thus the political cartoon from Le journal de Montréal is quite amusing - and honest about the CPC intent and tactics.

Just how far will the CONs go, to destroy the CBC?

Ceiling Vic is watching you.

Every step you take
Every move you make
I'll be watching you.

More information about Bill C-30 here, from CBC journalist Terry Milewski.

[...] then, there's Section 34. After reading it, you wonder whether it's just pandas we're getting from China.

Government-appointed inspectors

Among other things, the bill requires [Internet Service Providers] to install surveillance technology and software to enable monitoring of phone and internet traffic. Section 34 is there to make sure ISPs comply. So what, exactly, does it say?

Essentially, it says that government agents may enter an ISP when they wish, without a warrant, and demand to see absolutely everything — including all data anywhere on the network — and to copy it all. If that seems hard to believe, let's walk through it.

First, Section 33 tells us that, "The Minister may designate persons or classes of persons as inspectors for the purposes of the administration and enforcement of this Act." So we're not talking about police officers necessarily. We're talking about anyone the minister chooses — or any class of persons. [...]

Next, Section 34 spells out the sweeping powers of these "inspectors." And, if they sound Orwellian, welcome to the world of Section 34.

The inspectors may "enter any place owned by, or under the control of, any telecommunications service provider in which the inspector has reasonable grounds to believe there is any document, information, transmission apparatus, telecommunications facility or any other thing to which this Act applies."

And, once he or she is in, anything goes.

The inspector, says the bill, may "examine any document, information or thing found in the place and open or cause to be opened any container or other thing." He or she may also "use, or cause to be used, any computer system in the place to search and examine any information contained in or available to the system."

You read that right. The inspector gets to see "any" information that's in or "available to the system." Yours, mine, and everyone else's emails, phone calls, web surfing, shopping, you name it. But, if that sounds breath-taking enough, don't quit now because the section is still not done.

The inspector — remember, this is anyone the minister chooses — is also empowered to copy anything that strikes his or her fancy. The inspector may "reproduce, or cause to be reproduced, any information in the form of a printout, or other intelligible output, and remove the printout, or other output, for examination or copying."

Oh, and he can even use the ISP's own computers and connections to copy it or to email it to himself. He can "use, or cause to be used, any copying equipment or means of telecommunication at the place."

In short, there's nothing the inspector cannot see or copy. "Any" information is up for grabs. And you thought the new airport body scanners were intrusive?

Finally, note that such all-encompassing searches require no warrant, and don't even have to be in the context of a criminal investigation. Ostensibly, the purpose is to ensure that the ISP is complying with the requirements of the act — but nothing in the section restricts the inspector to examining or seizing only information bearing upon that issue. It's still "any" information whatsoever.

Read the whole thing.

Meanwhile, the editorial board at the NatPo is rearranging the location of deck chairs on the Titanic.

ADDED: An excellent summary of the @vikileak30 story from Stephen Maher.

Oh, and that delightful photoshop was created by Robert MacLelland.

Again -- Respectfully -- WHY?

On CBC Radio's The Current this morning, stand-in host Jim Brown interviewed MPs Stephen Woodworth and Brad Trost and Star Parliamentary reporter Tonda MacCharles.

While Woodworth weaselled around about his Private Member's Motion to have a 'respectful' dialogue on when life begins, aka Opening the Abortion Debate That No One Wants Opened, he failed again to answer the basic question of 'Why?'

Brown didn't press very hard, but to be fair, his interest wasn't in the debate as such but in a political analysis of what trying to open it may mean.

The segment started with about five reiterations of Stevie Peevie using his patronizing-a-four-year-old voice on 'I've been very clear. . . yadayada . . . will not reopen' schtick. Then Woodward came on to say basically nothing.

Then a little introduction to Trost and his desire for martyrdom in the form of airing his own notions as opposed to the rigorously enforced Contempt Party talking-points.

Trost came on live to witter on about his own interest in reopening the debate. Brown prodded him about what his fellow caucus members think of his going off-message. More bafflegab about respecting everybody . . . (I had sorta stopped listening by then, to tell the truth.)

Then MacCharles came on to reassure us that Stevie Peevie really really really means it about not reopening the debate and everybody should just relax.

OK, then. I wasted half an hour of my life on that.

Regular readers know that we here at DJ! trust the Contempt Party about as far as we could throw Rob Ford. In fact, we're devoted to keeping vigilant guard on the Hidden Agenda Watch.

So are we reassured?

Nope.

We think a debate, however respectful, is a total waste of time, money, and patience. Remember, if this motion passes, what amounts to a Standing Committee on Abortion will be formed to listen to windbags like Charles McVety opine. Plus a whole host of the usual suspects like R.E.A.L. Women, Campaign Lie, etc.

And politicians don't become politicians unless they looove the sound of their own voices, so the pols will dive in enthusiastically and we'll have a Parliamentary circus like this, with the elected equivalents of Twatsy running their mouths.

We've asked before and we'll ask -- respectfully -- again: Why do we need this debate?

If Stephen Woodworth can provide one reason for it, one injustice that would be righted, one social problem that would be clarified, then fine, bring it on.

But this appears to be the best he's got.

Members of Parliament have a duty not to accept any law that says some human beings are not human.

Seriously, that's all he's got.

Here we go again. Find your MP here and shoot her or him a quick note expressing displeasure/disgust/outrage at this effort to reopen The Debate We Have Had and Settled.

If a majority of MPs vote 'yes' on Woodworth's motion, the debate will be on and it will be those MPs' fault. Tell them you'll hold them responsible.




ADDED: The link now goes to podcast and transcript.

Your Compassionate Conservatism at Work

'Tis the season yadayada. . .

This is the time of the year I do my charitable donations. Not because of any seasonal sentiment, but because it's only at the end of the year that a freelancer knows how much she can afford.

So I was doing that and thinking about all the cuts that have been made and will be made by various levels of nasty governments, necessitating more of us ponying up more to try to mitigate the harm done to the most vulnerable here and elsewhere in the world.

Then I heard that CBC Radio had held its annual day-long Sounds of the Season fundraiser for local food banks yesterday. It was announced that a record $230,000 in cash and around 15,000 pounds of food have been donated so far. (The campaign runs to the end of the month. You can donate here.)

Good. Might help ease the sting of the Grinchy cut to the city's Christmas Bureau.

Here's what the our measly $125,000 DID.

Since 1956, the Christmas Bureau has coordinated the distribution of gifts and donations to thousands of children and their families in Toronto annually. Employment and Social Services is proud to partner with Toronto Fire Services, CHUM Christmas Wish and the Toronto Star to make this possible.

The Christmas Bureau:
• Co-ordinates the distribution of Toronto Star Gift Boxes to children 12 years of age or younger whose families are receiving social assistance.
• Provides a referral and information service to people receiving social assistance and low income families living in Toronto.
• Connects individual and corporate donors to appropriate agencies.
• Co-ordinates the distribution of gifts to community agencies to give out to low income families. To do this, the Christmas Bureau works closely with CHUM Christmas Wish and the Toronto Fire Services.

Cut.

Yabbut, yabbut, compassionate conservatives don't loathe poor people; they just think that private charity should do all that kinder, gentler stuff.

I looked around for local charitable efforts, especially sponsored by media outlets because, you know, that's a great way to get the word out, viz CBC.

The Toronto Star is running its annual Santa Claus fund with a goal this year of $1.6 million (almost $1.3 million raised as of now).

The local CTV station does 'Toy Mountain' every year.

I had a quick look but couldn't find anything from Global TV.

Then I went looking for what the Toronto Sun might be doing. On its home page, it's got a link to Variety Village, but it goes directly to that organization's home page. Seemingly no promotion other than a link. (They are promoting the
Molson Coors Drink Responsible [sic] Contest though.)

Looked some more and found this.

So I’m sitting here getting depressed reading how Canadians are giving less and less to charity.

Donations are at a 30-year low, says Statistics Canada.

It’s the economy, right? Or we’re too busy. We gave last year. We’re taking the kids to Disney World. Granny needs new teeth. The cat just had kittens. The locusts ate our crops. The tornado...

Myriad reasons, all good. But it’s worrisome, since 80% of charity comes from you and me, not big corporations.

So I’m down in the dumps — as I get set to launch my 2011 Christmas Fund for Variety Village.

Oh. The Christmas Fund for Variety Village is the work, not of the Sun Empire, but one columnist. Gracious of them to let him use valuable corporate assets to do it, doncha think?

Now you're wondering what Fox News North Sun News Network is doing for the Giving Season, aren't you?

Zip. That I could find.

But Big City Lib has the Xmas message the corp has for its staff. Wage freeze for 2012.

No compassionate conservatism from those lying vultures, it seems.

But here's a heartwarming antidote. Mysterious donors pay off Kmart layaway accounts.

Of course I sit ready to be corrected if someone has news of any effort by FNN.


h/t for the Kmart story to godammitkitty.

Stop the CBC smackdown.

Finally.

People who are also *friends of public broadcasting* have decided to forsake the genteel approach of that venerable institution in favour of a campaign that challenges the rough bully tactics used by its attackers.

Here it is, replete with robust wit and admirable aplomb. And two testerically funny videos featuring the new private owner of the CBC, Lance Fury. Click!

Bravo.

By the way, compare and contrast the above website with this charming StunTV home page.

I listen to Radio-Canada while I work. During the 2008 federal election campaign, friends and supporters produced this delicious little spoof that perfectly captured the *cul serré* (clenched butt) style of the Cons.

The above has subtitles. Click on the cc button. The one below is the full version, en français.

"General Mishmash" sez Ezrant - oh noes!

There you go, Canadian journalists.

Consider yourselves MASSIVELY rebuked and chastized by none other than StunTV's Ezra Levant (aka Dame Ezra for his cross-dressing proclivities).

Ezrant seems to believe his own shrieeeking performances and divertissements for Quebecor's Sun media RWNJ are above reproach - though it would seem that it's a matter of public record that most of his claims and statements do not meet the veracity standards of rigorous journalism nor, interestingly enough since he appears to sport some law degree of sorts, those of the court.

But they are exemplary of the manner in which RWNJs present truthiness.

Responses to Ezrant's fictional orientation and diversions can be found here and here.

Update: Susan Delacourt's account of the panel attended by Levant. Kady O'Malley's.

Canadian Cynic observes.

Contempt Party attacks against CBC have a purpose.

It should come as no surprise that ConJob MPty suits are biddable lackeys for Quebecor.

Pierre-Karl Péladeau is following the corporate model Rupert Murdoch so ruthlessly and successfully exploited in the UK: make sure that rightwing politicians silence your competition, or at the very least, any criticism of the way you run your business.

Conservative MPs are expressing concern about the CBC and its reluctance to release its corporate secrets under access-to-information laws – but the government itself has something to answer for on this issue, a leading democracy advocate says.

Duff Conacher, the co-ordinator of Democracy Watch, points out that the Conservatives have failed to keep their campaign promise of 2006 to strengthen the Access to Information Act. [...]

Meanwhile, reporters and others with an interest in obtaining information about government initiatives continue to be stymied by long delays, high search fees, blacked-out documents and outright refusals – including, apparently, Quebecor in its quest for information about the CBC.

Interestingly enough, Radio-Canada has been able to successfully expose Quebecor machinations. Journalists who have been told to change the content of their factual reporting to suit Péladeau's editorial whims and ideological bent have spoken publicly about these practices.

Macleans has also consistently lifted up rocks to observe what makes Quebecor and its magnate tick.

How can the public find out what financial considerations and rewards ConJob party members are receiving in their war against the CBC? And ... from whom?

More from Chantal Hébert though she overlooks fact that Cons are supporting concerted attack against CBC.

The Ugly Face of Contempt

Yup, ConJob MP Dean Del Mastro. Gleefully gloating about his plan to destroy the CBC - so that any serious journalistic broadcasting is eliminated in favour of infotainment as shown on Quebecor's StunTV - is unfolding as it should.

650% more than Sun Infotainment

Oh ... snap!

Source: this tweet.

Corporate Welfare for Quebecor and thus Sun TV

Look who's another MASSIVE liar.

Why, it's none other than Quebecor, owner of Sun Infotainment.

For more than three years, Quebecor has been using its newspapers, and more recently, its SunNews Network TV license to pursue a campaign against CBC/Radio-Canada. But there are some things Quebecor won’t tell you:

• Quebecor has received more than half a billion dollars in direct and indirect subsidies and benefits from Canadian taxpayers over the past three years, yet it is not accountable to them.
• Quebecor uses this public subsidy and its dominant position in protected industries to make record profits yet complains that its TVA television network "competes” against Radio-Canada.
• Quebecor boss Pierre Karl Péladeau has sent over a dozen letters to the Prime Minister and others in government to complain that Radio-Canada does not spend enough money advertising in his newspapers.

From here.

More background on Quebecor, here.

The Contemptuous Rob Anders

Those who've assumed the invisible MPty suit known as Rob Anders couldn't find his ass with both hands have incorrectly underestimated his ability.

Au contraire!

Anders has not only found his ass, he's also publicly flaunting it for all to see what a MASSIVE asshole he has is.

Meanwhile, two Conservative MPs, Rob Anders and Ed Holder, are taking it a step further, asking their constituents in surveys whether the government should keep funding the CBC.

Mr. Anders, a Calgary MP who has always been a controversial maverick on the right wing of his party, now features a petition on his website calling on Parliament “to end public funding of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.”

The petition represents an escalation of Mr. Anders’s campaign against CBC funding. He has made appearances on Sun TV to express his views on public funding for the CBC.

From here.

#AlternateUniverseJob for Rob Anders - Rupert Murdoch's Asshole.

Oh. Wait.

Photo from David Climenhaga's Alberta Diary.

Dirge/paean

Hi folks. I told you this was not a great time in my life to join another blog, so I haven't been around much, but I absolutely have to point y'all to this excellent article by now ex-CTV Québec City reporter Kai Nagata on why he quit and what he wants to do with his life.

Consider Fox News. What the Murdoch model demonstrated was that facts and truth could be replaced by ideology, with viewership and revenue going up. Simply put, you can tell less truth and make more money. When you have to balance the interests of your shareholders against the interests of the viewers you supposedly serve, the firewall between the boardroom and the newsroom becomes a very important bulwark indeed.

...

Take newsroom aesthetics as an example. I admit felt a profound discomfort working in an industry that so casually sexualizes its workforce. Every hiring decision is scrutinized using a skewed, unspoken ratio of talent to attractiveness, where attractiveness often compensates for a glaring lack of other qualifications. The insecurity, self doubt, and body-image issues endured by otherwise confident, intelligent journalists would break your heart. And clearly there’s a double standard, a split along gender lines.

...

Jon Stewart talks about a “right-wing narrative of victimization,” and what it has accomplished in Canada is the near-paralysis of progressive voices in broadcasting. In the States, even Fox News anchor Chris Wallace admitted there is an adversarial struggle afoot – that, in his view, networks like NBC have a “liberal” bias and Fox is there to tell “the other side of the story.” Well, Canada now has its Fox News. Krista Erickson, Brian Lilley, and Ezra Levant each do a wonderful send-up of the TV anchor character. The stodgy, neutral, unbiased broadcaster trope is played for jokes before the Sun News team gleefully rips into its targets. But Canada has no Jon Stewart to unravel their ideology and act as a counterweight. Our satirists are toothless and boring, with the notable exception of Jean-René Dufort.

...

Right now, there’s a war going on against science in Canada. In order to satisfy a small but powerful political base, the PMO is engaged in a not-so-clandestine operation to dismantle and silence the many credible opponents to the Harper doctrine. Why kill the census? Literally in order to make decisions in the dark, without the relevant data. Hence the prisons. Why de-fund scientific research?

...

I thought if I paid my dues and worked my way up through the ranks, I could maybe reach a position of enough influence and credibility that I could say what I truly feel. I’ve realized there’s no time to wait.

I have to resist the temptation to quote the entire thing. And I relate to it both politically and personally. I've made a similar choice recently and am in the process of tearing down a life I could mostly have kept in some manner if I wanted to, although I haven't been nearly as bold or as drastic as Nagata in going about it, and I'm probably a lot more likely to land on my feet. And Nagata's critique is applicable well beyond just journalism.

(h/t Warren Kinsella)

Hockey Fans for Peace

And for getting Sour Grapes to STFU.

A newly formed Vancouver-based group is challenging Don Cherry to a debate on Coach’s Corner to offset criticism that the fiery commentator is using Hockey Night in Canada to promote militarism and the war in Afghanistan.

Hockey Fans for Peace plans to rally outside the HNIC broadcast of Saturday night’s Vancouver Canucks game against the Detroit Red Wings at Rogers Arena in Vancouver to make the point that hockey fans have the democratic right to speak out against the war in Afghanistan.

Spokesman Kimball Cariou said Wednesday the group is calling on the CBC “to either stop the promotion of militarism during hockey broadcasts, or else to allow one of its members to debate Cherry during an upcoming Coach’s Corner.”

Hockey fan and peace activist Derrick O’Keefe agrees.

“It’s something that’s bothered me for a lot of years that Don Cherry’s Coach’s Corner has been used to really give a one-sided platform to talk about the war only in full support,” said O’Keefe, a member of the group’s Facebook page. “And when Don Cherry makes political comments during the hockey broadcast he’s never challenged.”

Of course, there's a Facebook group.

I just joined.

Who Da Scarediest Cabinet Minister?

CBC's The Current has a list of cabinet ministers who have declined and accepted requests to participate.

Here are the top four refusniks. Which is the refusiest?

Guess first, check the link after.

Vic (The Adulterer) Toews

Jim (I'm Outta Here) Prentice

Lawrence (The Loose) Cannon

Peter (Crybaby but in a Macho Uniform-Wearing Kinda Way) MacKay

Follow-up question: Are they more scared of Anna Maria Tremonti or The Voice? I've met The Voice. Definitely scarier.

CBC: Prognosis Critical

Harvie Andre was one of three partisan panelists on yesterday’s Year End Political Panel on The Current. He was so over-the-top that it was hard to remember points made by others. In fact, Warren Kinsella almost sounded bashful in comparison. I was surprised that they got Peggy Nash on that panel to represent the NDP. That was actually much better than their usual “left” (NDP) stalwart and sometimes Harper cheerleader, Janice McKinnon.

I used to listen to CBC Radio for most of the day and evening (combo of work and cooking) but these days I have a hard time keeping the radio on. Ideas is still top notch as is Eleanor Wachtel's Writers & Company but so many of the other programs that were worthwhile have been diluted, skewed or replaced by crap.

It’s not just the content of programming that has gone downhill. You can hear the cutbacks in almost all aspects of Radio One. There is so much repetitive programming that I have to keep tabs on whether I already heard something on the weekend or on a weekday morning/afternoon/evening. And it seems like they have laid off technical staff because there are far more glitches than ever before. Between news broadcasts mixing up tapes, intros and extros being out of whack, and phone line connection screw-ups — I experienced better quality control on campus/community radio.

As for their TV line-up, shriek! Seriously, how could they axe such great drama as Intelligence and This is Wonderland for the dreck that they now have?

I suspect that their money-maker, Hockey Night in Canada is next to go, or is that already official. Failing to negotiate a renewal of the contract for the theme song was definitely a death knell. TSN doesn't exist on making lucrative offers. That music was CBC's to lose and had little to do with Dolores Claman’s renegotiation demands for the rights to use her iconic music. Even on last night’s As It Happens year end current affairs quiz, none of the panelists (Elizabeth May, Pat Martin and Scott Brison) could hum the contest-winning replacement theme, Canadian Gold. (It reminds me of the theme from Dallas but with a flourish of bag pipes.)

I am convinced that Harper is trying to destroy the CBC from the inside. I also think that Ignatieff will not put up a fight with the proposed cuts to the CBC. What the hell would he know about the CBC or what it means to many of us when he has spent so much of his time outside this country! He probably will think of it as nothing more than an archaic nation building tool.

Thanks to decades of insufficient funding and government pressure to compete against media giants, what was once an institution started by a visionary leader is now stacked with executives who think they can hang on to their jobs by helping the CBC transition into something new -- perhaps privatized or member supported.