CBC vs. CTV vs. Global - Page 6

SignalHillHiker · #**101** Posted **Jul 9, 2018, 9:57 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

I take a little umbrage to your characterization that non-progressive viewpoints are necessarily "regressive".

A non-progressive viewpoint might simply be "conservative" in the sense that not all "progressive" change is good change. Progressive change can be disruptive and may accomplish little in the long run. Sometimes the status quo is preferable.

Many conservatives are not interested in winding the clock back. They just feel that most of the major changes necessary to promote equality and fairness have already been made. Additional change might actually tip the balance in the other direction. This viewpoint is not actively regressive. It is conservative in the sense you want to "conserve" the current situation.

Too much change can amount to unnecessary meddling.

I don't self-identify as libtard either.

elly63 · #**102** Posted **Jul 9, 2018, 10:39 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SignalHillHiker

I don't self-identify as libtard either.

That's a bad word, I used it here once and had to wash my mouth out with Thrills gum.

elly63 · #**103** Posted **Jul 9, 2018, 10:39 PM**

Meanwhile back at the thread

CBC vs. CTV vs. Global?

Wpg_Guy · #**104** Posted **Jul 9, 2018, 10:53 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by esquire

Winnipeg is less than an hour away from the US border, but sadly you can't easily tune in NPR. It would add so much to the radio spectrum if it were readily available here.

(Maybe on a winter day you could catch the AM signal, but that's about it I think...)

NPR app and stream it, the CBC radio apps are great too can listen from anywhere

elly63 · #**105** Posted **Jul 9, 2018, 11:02 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wpg_Guy

NPR app and stream it, the CBC radio apps are great too can listen from anywhere

One thing I'll say about the Ceeb is that their online presence is great. For most of my lifetime I haven't bothered with cable and watching the Olympics on CBC online is better than on conventional TV. Truly On Demand.

Architype · #**106** Posted **Jul 10, 2018, 12:21 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

I take a little umbrage to your characterization that non-progressive viewpoints are necessarily "regressive".

A non-progressive viewpoint might simply be "conservative" in the sense that not all "progressive" change is good change. Progressive change can be disruptive and may accomplish little in the long run. Sometimes the status quo is preferable.

Many conservatives are not interested in winding the clock back. They just feel that most of the major changes necessary to promote equality and fairness have already been made. Additional change might actually tip the balance in the other direction. This viewpoint is not actively regressive. It is conservative in the sense you want to "conserve" the current situation.

Too much change can amount to unnecessary meddling.

This all seems reasonable, except, can you actually identify examples of progressive change that had definitive bad results?

khabibulin · #**107** Posted **Jul 10, 2018, 12:29 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by rousseau

The insults are because you just said that the left doesn't distance itself from the crazies while "the right does."

The right voted in Donald Trump, fer crissakes.

American citizens voted in Donald Trump. Many (mainly democrat supporters) may have held their nose because they could not vote for the other candidate.

The world is not always you are either.....or. Left and right stereotypes are limiting and divisive.

Acajack · #**108** Posted **Jul 10, 2018, 1:22 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Architype

This all seems reasonable, except, can you actually identify examples of progressive change that had definitive bad results?

I have a few things to say on this.

First of all, in the western world, progressive policies have been the mainstream since the end of WW2. Yes there have been setbacks but overall progressivism has carried the day more often than not. It's a three steps forward one step back scenario. This is even true in the United States BTW.

The postwar era is actually a very short timeframe to assess the impacts (positive or negative) of these progressive policies. To a large degree we're simply living with them for better or for worse. Without really thinking of their good or bad sides. Like a fish not knowing that water is wet.

So none of us alive today is likely to be able to judge whether we had it right or if we got it all wrong. This will be done after we are all dead.

Another thing is that because progressivism has generally had the upper hand in our societies, stuff gets labelled as progressive even though it's not 100% clear cut that it actually is. A good example of this is mass immigration which all progressives are called upon to support unequivocally but which actually favours big corporate interests more than anything by providing them with less expensive labour and increasing the domestic consumer base for their products much more than the natural increase (births) would normally do. And the jury is still out on whether it hurts domestically-sourced labour.

Architype · #**109** Posted **Jul 10, 2018, 1:33 AM**

How about; the Bolshevik revolution and the Cuban revolution? Would those be good examples of "progressive" change? Maybe even the American revolution, as we can still only guess how that will turn out.

White Pine · #**110** Posted **Jul 10, 2018, 3:32 AM**

Based on little observation, I get the impression that CBC's online journalism, despite being left leaning, puts far more effort into being balanced than their TV coverage. Anyone else find this?

I do worry that CBC's (and the like) constant barrage of "there is tons of racism against groups x,y,z" could be counter productive. To be sure, there are such people out there, and I suppose that's worth fighting, but overblow it too much risks creating hostility between groups that wasn't there before.

someone123 · #**111** Posted **Jul 10, 2018, 3:41 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Acajack

And the jury is still out on whether it hurts domestically-sourced labour.

This article does a good job of discussing the effects of immigration: https://www.politico.com/magazine/st...nt-jobs-214216

Basically the conclusions are that immigrants help people who hire them and hurt people who compete with them. This makes perfect sense. Politicians will hardly ever discuss immigration in these terms.

The exact effect by country depends on what kind of immigrants are admitted.

The idea that immigrants create economic growth has some truth too but the idea that everyone is always better off with more immigration is based on "magical thinking" (and has a clear political significance).

PBruge · #**112** Posted **Jul 10, 2018, 5:12 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by someone123

This article does a good job of discussing the effects of immigration: https://www.politico.com/magazine/st...nt-jobs-214216

Basically the conclusions are that immigrants help people who hire them and hurt people who compete with them. This makes perfect sense. Politicians will hardly ever discuss immigration in these terms.

The exact effect by country depends on what kind of immigrants are admitted.

The idea that immigrants create economic growth has some truth too but the idea that everyone is always better off with more immigration is based on "magical thinking" (and has a clear political significance).

Weird that countries 100% built on immigration are the ones that are suddenly questioning the value of immigration, non? And we used to take anybody from anywhere. If you didn’t have smallpox, you were in! Not being Irish was also a bonus. And oi vey I’m forgetting someone..

Yet the group who should be the most vehemently anti-immigrant of all - Aboriginals - are not.

casper · #**113** Posted **Jul 10, 2018, 7:03 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by drew

CBC, both on TV and online.

Seldom CTV, never Global.

When I am down in the States, I do admit to watching Fox News - simply for the entertainment factor.

It is bad now. It 24 Hour coverage of Trump on both CNN and FOX. There is only so much Trump one can take.

Before Trump.... what was always interesting being in a hotel room in the states is flipping between CNN and FOX. Same breaking news story but completely different perspective.

mistercorporate · #**114** Posted **Jul 10, 2018, 8:52 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by khabibulin

American citizens voted in Donald Trump. Many (mainly democrat supporters) may have held their nose because they could not vote for the other candidate.

The world is not always you are either.....or. Left and right stereotypes are limiting and divisive.

Exactly, I know tons of Democrats who voted for Trump.

mistercorporate · #**115** Posted **Jul 10, 2018, 8:58 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by someone123

This article does a good job of discussing the effects of immigration: https://www.politico.com/magazine/st...nt-jobs-214216

Basically the conclusions are that immigrants help people who hire them and hurt people who compete with them. This makes perfect sense. Politicians will hardly ever discuss immigration in these terms.

The exact effect by country depends on what kind of immigrants are admitted.

The idea that immigrants create economic growth has some truth too but the idea that everyone is always better off with more immigration is based on "magical thinking" (and has a clear political significance).

Acajack · #**116** Posted **Jul 10, 2018, 10:50 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Architype

How about; the Bolshevik revolution and the Cuban revolution? Would those be good examples of "progressive" change? Maybe even the American revolution, as we can still only guess how that will turn out.

An argument could be made for the Bolsheviks and the Castrists, but not sure about the American Revolution. It's hard to transpose today's concepts on events of 250 years ago, but by today's standards the revolutionaries might have been right wingers as their movement had its origins in an anti-tax revolt!

MonctonRad · #**117** Posted **Jul 10, 2018, 11:15 AM**

Libertarians, one and all!!!

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness vs. peace, order and good government.........

Acajack · #**118** Posted **Jul 10, 2018, 1:26 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by mistercorporate

That's quite interesting.

BTW posting this also raises questions about the relative entrepreneurial success of immigrants depending on where they are from.

There are human groupings that send tons of immigrants to the U.S. that are virtually absent from those lists, and there are groups that pop up here and there on the list who only represent a tiny fraction of newcomers to that country.

mistercorporate · #**119** Posted **Jul 10, 2018, 2:21 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Acajack

That's quite interesting.

BTW posting this also raises questions about the relative entrepreneurial success of immigrants depending on where they are from.

There are human groupings that send tons of immigrants to the U.S. that are virtually absent from those lists, and there are groups that pop up here and there on the list who only represent a tiny fraction of newcomers to that country.

In the US, due to their weird immigration lottery system, the sources of immigrants is extremely diverse. Now, illegal immigrants on the other hand come mostly from one or two countries and are generally poorly educated.

Acajack · #**120** Posted **Jul 10, 2018, 2:28 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by mistercorporate

In the US, due to their weird immigration lottery system, the sources of immigrants is extremely diverse. Now, illegal immigrants on the other hand come mostly from one or two countries and are generally poorly educated.

I was actually going to mention how the immigrant selection process in the U.S. differs substantially from Canada's.

Ours is definitely better IMO - and many Americans agree.