Oh how I tire of the use of the twisting of true statements to convey distorted impressions! I tried an experiment this week. I handed a dear lady, a staunch supporter of the CBC, a copy of Blake Richard's Wild Rose Report that had just come in. It is headed, ëDebate Over Accountability at the CBC is Heating Up.' The dear lady was upset, saying things like ìWhy did the CBC behave this way?î That, of course, is exactly the kind of reaction the Conservative Party is hoping to create with this report. Next I handed the dear lady notes from the live blog covering the ethics committee hearing with the information commissioner. She suddenly had a very different impression from the one she received reading the Wild Rose Report.
Many years ago I read a very helpful book on dealing with aggressors in volunteer organizations. We've all had to cope with power hungry people in minor hockey, churches and other community groups. One of their tactics to get people on their side is to use statements such as, ìA number of people have complained..î ìMany of us are tired of...î These people will not give actual numbers, they will manipulate the facts and employ tactics that invite open confrontation. The trick in a small organization is to ask outright, ìHow many? Who are they? I'd like to personally hear their point of view.î I have found myself thinking about that book as I watch the highly manipulative and confrontational approach of our current Conservative government. Unfortunately, when it's a power hungry prime minister working on a national level, it's not quite so easy to defuse.
Note that the Wild Rose Report uses the word ëmany' without backup (ìThe CBC has received many requests...has refused many requests.î) How many? ìDeemed refusalsî ñ those that are automatically refused because they fail to meet the CBC's understanding of the requirements ñ represent 5 per cent of the total requests received by the CBC. Furthermore, anyone can go to the CBC website, click on ëMore,î click on ëCBC Radio-Canada' under ëCorporate' and in the transparency section find answers to all Access to Information requests that have been answered. CBC is the only organization to provide such information. Reading through the blog reporting on the hearing it is shocking to see how close (Conservative MP) Dean del Mastro comes to accusing LaCroix (head of the CBC) of hiding personal expenses in programming budgets. The CBC is subject to regular audit and cannot possibly commit such a criminal act. At one point LaCroix is almost accused of hiding personal expenses and at another, Quebecor (a.k.a. Fox News North) is castigating him for items in his expense account ñ which they know about because he has never tried to hide them.
The CBC is in very much of a Catch-22 position. It is argued that since CBC personalities are paid in taxpayers' money those salaries should be revealed. But when competing broadcasters ñ who are NOT required to reveal such information ñ know these figures they can make offers to ësteal' the kinds of personalities that draw an audience. A low audience justifies further cuts to the CBC. Is this whole debate a veiled attempt to cut down our public broadcaster? The only broadcaster to offer expensive services to remote communities, to maintain ad-free radio service making it possible for them to blow the whistle on unethical practices in big business, the only broadcaster to ask the hard questions of all sides in a debate? To label the CBC ëleftist' is ludicrous. I've heard comments on programs in which the right says they're too far left and the left says they're too far right, which would suggest that they're fairly well balanced.
No government has loved the CBC ñ their interviewers ask probing questions of all governing parties. Nonetheless, during the election campaign, Stephen Harper promised to ìmaintain or increase funding to the CBC.î Is this highly confrontational debate a means of seeking a way out of his promise?
- Anne Macklin
