Mr. Reinvented has done a great job of digging behind the headlines. This is one of the best (IMHO) pieces that Peter has done and it points out once again just how irrelevant the CBC has become.
Shame CBC, shame.
Shame on you, CBC Sunday, February 22, 2004
Have Your Saycomments & trackbacks
The trackback URL for this entry is: http://paradise.islandmusings.net/index.php/trackback/870/
22 Feb 2004 at 11:28 am | #
CBC has been a press release service for too long there. When the budget was being screwed up a couple of years ago, the TV news presented a 12 minute piece of fluff on how tough it was to prepare a budget, interviewing many smiling suits behind desks, never asking real questions. Given the capability of CBC Halifax to address the news, why is the local situation accepted? Given also The Guardian, “covering your eyes like the dew”, how do you know what is going on?
22 Feb 2004 at 11:33 am | #
how do you know what is going on?
We are starting to publish the real news I guess.
22 Feb 2004 at 11:50 am | #
But...really...isn’t that something of the dreamy world of Dave Winer? There are no resources to bring access to information cases, no time to sit in question period and not status to require politicians and bean pushers to answer anything. Plus maybe 1% of PEI residents read all the blogs put together.
22 Feb 2004 at 12:20 pm | #
The sometimes annoying need to be seen as a “leader” does often offer snippets of genius. Regularly, he does raise pertinent points about Island life, and quite often, Islanders need to hear these issues as seen by someone “from away”. While there are some who appear to follow his guidance like sheep, his exposè on C.B.C. fluff and misrepresentation will hopefully, have a few tongues wagging amongst his flock, and outside his regular circle of influence.
22 Feb 2004 at 12:29 pm | #
I wasn’t suggesting Peter has any “leader” status like Winer. His self-declared and reasonable inability to get into certain topics alone should confirm that. For example, CBC has been parroting PEI government clap trap for years but he does not discuss that. What I was suggesting is that bloggers do not have the resources or access to replace a proper news service. Because of his position on PEI postivism, Peter is one of the least able to play that role even if it were possible. Something less than but along the same lines of a Jack MacAndrew commentary, only with a properly declared conflict of interest and less fudgery.
22 Feb 2004 at 12:59 pm | #
Clairification: My comments were were not related to, nor intended in any way to appear related to, your post.(Our healthy disagreements are quite apparent, and never need to become suggestive, Al.)
22 Feb 2004 at 02:09 pm | #
Sorry Wayne...I didn’t read the fine print and thought HB was responding. I think, however, the thread works as is.
One of the delicate things about this argument that blogs can replace news media is this point on conflict. We all have conflict and only two professions really have mandate to avoid them - lawyers and public officals. Where journalists get into difficulty is the failure to recognize and declare them so we understand the partiality or impartiality involved. That difficulty, however, is of a different sort as it only relates to credibility. Where a news source is not based on absolute credibility (ie the 1970’s Halifax Herald or Pravda) the conflict is not matter. Good news sources, on the other hand, avoid them like the plague and root them out.
I think you are quite right, Wayne, about Peter that he does offer many good observations. My only problem is that he does not and, to be very fair, cannot provide more given his quite proper declaration of conflict. Subtract that from the mixture and I can put up with the “sunnyside up” only outlook for much of the rest.