I would declare that they should be productions of the CBC/Radio-Canada as part of your public service mandate to give all Canadians the right to hear all views. To advise me that this consortium of corporate funded and run organizations is somehow an unbiased group is an insult to the Canadian people. The monopoly of corporate views saturating the media is already undemocratic This simply confirms the hold they have on our electoral process. The Canadian Broadcasting system was created to give Canadians unbiased reporting and be a form of communications not tied to corporate influence.
When you state that these four parties are the most ‘prominent’ you give further evidence that although the other parties are legally registered political parties in Canada, they will not be heard until they are famous, well-known, important as per the term ‘prominent’. Being well-known does not make the party the best choice for Canadians, and you are implying that it does, by your position. How does one become well-known without the influence of the media? If all candidates are equal under the eyes of the law, then by extension all parties are equal until the ballot is counted. Just because I ran a race three years ago and won, doesn’t give me a head start on this year’s race.
You have gone on to say, “The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) Guidelines for Broadcast Licensees do not require that debate programs feature all rival parties or candidates, as long as audiences are informed of the main issues and of the positions of all candidates and registered parties on those issues through other programming.” Once again, ‘the main issues’ as defined by who and through what other programming? The sound bites that appeared as the voice of small parties on CBC’s broadcast of Newsworld, could hardly equate to full disclosure of either the issues or the party platforms.
Your final and most important point is that “CBC/Radio-Canada’s election coverage, in English and French, on air and online, will focus on such issues and ideas as integrity, corruption, agendas, competency, money, media, transparency, the democratic deficit, the courts vs. Parliament, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, minority vs. majority governments, leaders, the federal representatives vs. the provinces and, ultimately, power.”
I would very much appreciate you explaining to me how you will deal with these issues? We have four parties being highlighted who have been involved in the sell out of Canada through the signing of Trade Deals which reduce our ability to self-govern. They have participated in the most scandalous issue of all which is our $500 billion national debt due to the total incompetence of several federal governments. They have all assisted in the liberty stripping legislation enacted as a rash emotional response to 9/11. Is it not the point of debate to have two views? You are highlighting 4 parties with the same view, the only difference being the manner in which we get to the same goal. If you do not have a voice that brings out those issues that are critical to Canada remaining a sovereign independent country, how can you suggest this is balanced? If you are suggesting that a broadcaster is going to ask those questions, none of the four parties will answer it. Only the Canadian Action Party will. The Canadian people are tired of hearing the parties calling each other names, and suggesting one is better than the other, or one policy is better than the other. We want to hear about what is happening in this country not in their party! The focus you refer to cannot be dealt with openly until you allow those who know and are willing to state the facts, the freedom to do so. Every fact I refer to is documented. This is not hype, it is fact. The people involved are not going to declare this to the Canadian people--are you?
I look forward to you examining my letter and reconsidering CBC’s role as an independent voice willing to expose the demise of our country before it is too late.
Yours truly
Catherine Whelan Costen
Canadian Action Party President & Communications Director
Cc: CBC President Robert Rabinovitch : robert_rabinovitch@cbc.ca
Ombudsman for the CBC ombudsman@cbc.ca
Chief Electoral Officer Transmitted via fax
Media
Connie Fogal, Leader Canadian Action Party
[Proofreader's note: this article was edited for spelling and typos on December 14, 2005]
Comments
view comments in forum
You need to be a member and be logged into the site, to comment on stories.
Thank you for your concern about (Insert name of programme or event here) [CBC/Radio-Canada News productions]. We here at (Insert name of programme or event here) [CBC/Radio-Canada News productions] are committed to bringing you the finest in news and entertainment and wee appreciate the input of out (choose one: viewers/listeners) .
I can assure you that we will (Insert course of action) [continue to ignore your idiot moonbat fringe party to bring people relevant news] and that your concerns will be (Insert course of action) [posted on the office bulletin board for a good laugh].
We at (Insert name of programme or event here) [CBC/Radio-Canada News productions] are grateful for your feedback.
Yours, (Signature of mid level management person that will never be bothered with this nonsense, NOT the intern who handled it) [Bob MacDonald]
(insert his or her title here) [CBC Director, Public Relations and Operations]
{FILE TO}
---
If I stand for my country today...will my country be here to stand for me tomorrow?
leaders from all parties from the Communists to
the Christian Heritage party, CAP and everywhere
in between.
Of course, it should be a regular feature.Since they
are funded by the taxpayer, they should show
ALL the voting options.
leaders from all parties from the Communists to
the Christian Heritage party, CAP and everywhere
in between.<<
See whaling, the CBC profiled CAP, right along with the Christian heritage party and the Communists. Sure, cap doesn’t have the big bucks and back door connections of the Christian heritage party, but they got equal time with that high pressure political machine. Cap may actually hold its own against the Christian heritage party.
I am concerned though that the GTA will not bite of which is their choice of course.
I do beileve that the people of the GTA area are very intelligent people, as I hope some respect us in the same way.AB.
I have worked as a consultant in most provinces and there are some very intelligent people across this vast land.
Maybe we should be Canadians First and Ontarians And Albertans Second.
Ontarians will still have the last vote anyway.All parties know this of coures.
I will also respect the decision.
Lionel Morin,
Lloydminster AB.
The revenue from the Auto-Pact should be fully shared, including the UAW worker making 60k a year to install floor mats. His wage is "transferred" into the price of the vehicle after all. And we all need cars just as badly as the fuel that goes into them. Can't have one without the other.
CAP may be better off to work at the level of media reforms with NGO organisations like adbusters.org and their media carta campaign. Our legacy media channels are incapable of reforming themselves.
I also find it somewhat weird that some political parties work on "canadian content" but fail to realize that it will take media reforms for this to happen. I would personally do a major mopup (kinda of slash&burn) of the CRTC (and the CBC/SRC) if I could as they are the biggest impediment to changes in our medias IMHO. Call that the culture of "entitlement" or the king's fool court. Note that our public medias failed to uncover the addscam and in fact gag ordered whistleblower Normand Lester. And nobody on this election is talking about media reforms as a serious issue to improving accountability and transparency of our federal governance. Under these conditions, the Bloc would be highly appealing to a Québécois? They are currently expected to sweep la belle Province.
---
"We are all in this together somehow, some more than others somehow"
A good illustration was the complaints of the former Reform Party supporters when they were having trouble getting media attention. They finally got Conrad Black to take on the promotion of their message. Once they gained a media advocate they became one of the strongest promoters of the rights of the corporate media to censorship other voices.
If the "other" parties had a sincere wish to promote democracy they would be willing to work together to promote common objectives. When Paul Hellyer led CAP that attempt was made but the Greens and NDP rejected it. Under the new leadership of CAP that sense of reaching out has been lost.
If those parties got together and put together a plan for a debate among their leaders, then their members could put together a major campaign to pressure the national media into carrying it. It would be difficult for the national media to refuse without making themselves look bad.
---
"We are all in this together somehow, some more than others somehow"
There is no doubt that the CBC requires a major overhaul. It is more and more operating as the voice of a centralized elite. I was not impressed with Peter Mansbridge's reaction to Harris' suggestion that the media simply ignore his message and that is why he was having problems getting it out. Mansbridge's response was extremely defensive and he basically told him to shut up, he was getting his chance. This was not an acceptable response to the fact that the CBC, just like the other corporate media, does censor the other voices.
Actually, that might not have been a bad outcome, for these TV shows are not "debates" at all in the traditional sense, merely advertising spots for each leader to sound off their particular platform.
The lack of interaction between participants, and the utter absense of spontaneity, removes any pretense of debating and allows each leader to stick to a carefully scripted, meticulously rehearsed story line. Its a spin-meister's dream, and has little or nothing to offer voters. I can't imagine, with Christmas approaching and all, that many people will pay much attention to it. That is probably a good thing.
I like the proposal of a previous contributor who suggested that the smaller parties should reach out to each other, and organize an alternative TV debate. That might not be an instant panacea for their media exposure problems, but it would be a very good start.
Taking that idea to the next logical step, they might find that, at least at the outset, they would have to finance this venture themselves, and buy the necessary airtime. They ought to be able to do this quite easily.
Every evening I turn on my TV at 11 o'clock and my local news abounds with glowing tales of small charities, some of them very localized and quite obscure, that have just lit up the night with a successful fund raising event, and managed to garner an impressive amount of money. Their methods are simple and straight-forward, and the numbers of people involved are not large. They are all good causes, and I wish them well.
Surely though, to caring Canadians, there can be no better cause than making their voices heard in the national debate. Between election times, it would not be at all unreasonable for the CAP and other similar parties to organize numerous such small fund-raisers around the country, and forge an agreement to pool resources for a nationally televised leaders debate. If they can't accomplish that relatively simple task, maybe they aren't worth hearing after all.
In any event, what we are doing now is clearly not working. The ideas that matter the most to us are not even on the political radar screen. No one talks or even thinks about them. Irrelevance is already upon us. Political extinction awaits just down the road if we cannot somehow change our ways.
You can reach all you want but if others do not wish to be touched they won't. CAP could continue to sit on their hands and wish or hope or beg to create the one big party, but if we did none of the issues would come out. There is only so much time, energy and very little money to spread around. Paul Hellyer invested greatly in the idea, he wrote a book on the subject, but until the people get behind it, the concept will not happen. Until the people are enlightened they are not going to move. We are at least with the minimum support making the issues known. You can continue to criticize the small parties, but unless you are going to get involved, what purpose does it serve. A party is only as good as the people that drive it. As someone mentioned above about the Reform party, it was a grassroots party, but if you rely on corporate dollars, you are eventually going to have to pay for that support. We prefer to rely on the people's efforts, energy and monetary support, that way we will always stay true to our supporters. We will not be reformed by Ottawa.
---
If I stand for my country today...will my country be here to stand for me tomorrow?