The CBC Has Become Synonymous With Fakery

We’re getting accustomed to lies.
Our own public broadcaster not only condones it but also encourages it as a necessary step on the path to success in today’s media-rich world.
Jian Ghomeshi and Tod Maffin are the shining examples of how far people who work at the CBC will go to deceive the public.
Jian lies about writing a blog, lies about writing for The Guardian, and lies about the understanding he had with Billy Bob Thornton.
Tod Maffin lies about pretty much everything, including that he’s still employed by the CBC.

A fake news show currently airing on CBC Radio, called “This Is That”, has actually fooled people into believing that their reports are the real thing. Says Pat Kelly, one of the actors, “… unless you’re really paying attention to the content itself, you’ll probably just assume that what you’re hearing is all true.”

Today, July 21st, is a little late to be pulling an April Fool’s joke.
But in a news story published by Canoe News, it becomes increasingly apparent that it’s impossible to tell what’s reality and what isn’t when we read about the CBC.


Check this out.
Is it truth or is it fiction?

OTTAWA – CBC is doing a really good job of serving the public, according to the CBC.
The public broadcaster commissioned an online survey of 527 opinion leaders who overwhelmingly hold positive opinions of the CBC.
“I have no idea how I ended up on the list,” said one participant who asked not to be identified.
A spokesman for CBC tells QMI Agency that 1,973 CBC stakeholders including governments, academics and other media outlets, were invited to participate from lists drawn up internally.
Asked for their overall views on CBC, 80% said they hold positive impressions. These impressions included agreeing with statements such as “CBC provides value for money to Canadian taxpayers” and “CBC creates programming that is relevant to me.”
A spokesman says the purpose of the survey is to help guide strategic planning for the future of the organization.
The official refused to release the cost of the survey claiming it to be “commercially sensitive.”

24 comments:

  1. ugh
    Posted August 3, 2010 at 3:10 am | # | Reply to this masterpiece
  2. Allanjoined April 10, 2009
    Posted July 26, 2010 at 10:02 pm | # | Reply to this masterpiece

    George Stroumboulopoulos, probably the most fake of all journalists in the country, has no qualms about misleading viewers into believing that this interview is taking place AFTER the ceremony, when the truth is it was taped days before.
    How is the audience supposed to tell the difference between what is real and what is fake?
    They’re not.
    It’s the CBC way.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1OK_7SLp3Ls

  3. Allanjoined April 10, 2009
    Posted July 26, 2010 at 6:44 am | # | Reply to this masterpiece

    The Canadian Centre for Victims of Torture
    http://ccvt.org/supporter/our-supporters/

    “My involvement with CCVT started in November 2006 when I was invited to host and serve as Master of Ceremonies for the annual First Light Celebration and Awards dinner.  The connection was immediate. I recognized the crucial services that CCVT provides …”

    Jian’s endorsement is followed by a lengthy promotional blurb for Jian, written by Jian:
    “As a writer and columnist, Jian’s editorials and opinion pieces have been published in The Washington Post, The Guardian, The Globe and Mail, The Toronto Star, and The International Herald Tribune. In 2008 he became a weekly columnist for The National Post.”

  4. Anonymous
    Posted July 26, 2010 at 12:32 am | # | Reply to this masterpiece

    “Chapman developed a series of obsessions, including artwork, The Catcher in the Rye, music, and John Lennon, and started hearing voices again. In September 1980, he wrote a letter to a friend, Lynda Irish, in which he stated, “I’m going nuts”, and signed it “The Catcher in the Rye”

    At an initial hearing, in January 1981, Chapman’s new lawyer Jonathan Marks entered a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity. In February, Chapman sent a handwritten statement to The New York Times, urging everyone to read The Catcher in the Rye, calling it an “extraordinary book that holds many answers”.

  5. Anonymous
    Posted July 23, 2010 at 10:50 pm | # | Reply to this masterpiece

    Allan you are batshit mother fucking straight up insane. Time to reread Catcher in the Rye. There’s a message on page 75 just for you.

    • PoonGirl
      Posted July 24, 2010 at 2:57 pm | # | Reply to this masterpiece

      Why are you trying to reason with a crazy person then ?

    • Allanjoined April 10, 2009
      Posted July 24, 2010 at 8:27 pm | # | Reply to this masterpiece

      The J.D. Salinger book is one of my favourites, and I think everyone would enjoy reading it, and finding their own “message” in it.
      I’m not sure why someone would think of that book and me, but it’s certainly flattering, though a bit excessive.

  6. Allanjoined April 10, 2009
    Posted July 23, 2010 at 9:38 pm | # | Reply to this masterpiece

    Now Maffin.

    What a fucking piece of work.
    
He was once given the stewardship of the Official Blog of the CBC. 
And he used it for all he could, particularly to inflate his own importance.
    Over the last few years, I too have focused quite a bit on Tod Maffin.

    http://todmaffinrulestheuniverse.blogspot.com/2007_08_01_archive.html

    http://todmaffinrulestheuniverse.blogspot.com/search?updated-max=2007-08-23T03%3A58%3A00-07%3A00&max-results=20

    I wrote a post at Tea Makers that asked “did George turn down Canadian Idol?”
    
Tod wrote a post saying that George denies having been offered Canadian Idol.

    The National Post picked up the item and made reference, not to tea Makers, but to Tod’s story.
 The morning that the small item was seen in print, Tod immediately put a picture of himself, adorned in his CBC vest, so that was all anyone saw in front of them if they went to the CBC blog.

    Tod has been called a futurist – a futurist!

    By no less than The Globe & Mail.

    But of course it would be fairer to say that he was called a futurist by a very naive person writing for the Globe.

    But Tod has used that line for years as a reliable indication of his talents.
    
Do you think Tod is a futurist? 
Do you think that his work and output and “predictions” meet the criteria for being a credible “futurist”?
    But Tod is so much more than that, and I bet you had no idea that such an imposing and powerful mind exists in our midst:

    “Tod Maffin is quickly emerging as a leading international authority on the “Facebook Generation” (also known as Generation Y or Millennials) and the strategic use of social media in every part of business — from human resources to real estate to mental health.
Maffin is one of the country’s go-to commentators on the impact of accelerated technological change and innovation on the business and economic environment and can speak to every aspect of technology and resulting implications for the world in which we live.
One of Canada’s podcasting pioneers, Maffin writes a blog that is followed by thousands of people in the media, technology and business communities around the world. He continues to report on national technology trends on CBC Radio and is the past host of todradio dot com and Real Life Chronicles.”

    http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/tod-maffin/id350146563?mt=8

    It is the biggest load of horse shit I have ever read.

    Who would believe this stuff?
    
Why every organization that uses him to speak to their group during an excuse for a “convention”.

    All of it as written by Tod Maffin.
    How closely do you think the CBC supervised Tod Maffin, and what he was doing, particularly with his company – Tod Maffin Inc.?

    Well here’s an example, the “closer” to his personal promo and picture above

    as if to say – “if you have stuff you want reviewed, send it directly to my home, away from the prying eyes of my employer, where only you know and I know what I’m getting in the mail.”

    Who is keeping account of this stuff?
 And how much of the stuff did Tod then turn around and sell and kept the money? 
None?
 How can anyone be sure?
 Or what if he holds a contest, and the chance to enter is predicated upon signing up for his newsletter?
    The CBC simply turned a blind eye, and saw no conflict of interest.

    • PoonGirl
      Posted July 23, 2010 at 11:22 pm | # | Reply to this masterpiece

      Sexy Allan, wasn’t is Jian (or am I wrong) that wrote “he has shared the stage with” ?
      I’m not sure who it was but I think we were discussing this a while ago. Another bio mis-direction I loathe ! Having a small part in a film (like George) then writing George has “shared the stage” with Leonardo DiCaprio or some crap like that. We all know Jian loves hosting events, has he “shared the stage” with Bob Dylan ? Was he a contributer to Conan O’Brien ? Jian’s bio is more tricky to figure out than the movie Inception ! His bio is like those Russian nesting dolls, you read the bio as a whole then have to disect the sentence by sentence, then word by word to discover te truth !

      • Anonymous
        Posted July 24, 2010 at 2:30 am | # | Reply to this masterpiece

        And where on Jian’s bio does it say he is a Christian Evangelist working with WorldVision? I missed that part….

  7. Allanjoined April 10, 2009
    Posted July 23, 2010 at 8:38 pm | # | Reply to this masterpiece

    I’d like you to answer one question, apart from everything else that I’m about to say – what do you think made the CBC change the Jian Ghomeshi “bio”?

    You’re right when you point out that one is not like the other.
    Your comment spends a lot of time on the discussing comedy, and it should have been made clearer in the post that the reason for the mention of “This Is That” was to let Pat Kelly make the point that unless people read, listen, and view ALL media critically, anyone and everyone can easily be fooled.
    Look at the current Obama boo-boo over the recent firing of a dedicated responsible public servant, or Harper firing Geurgis in a moment of guesswork.
    Most people are simply not alert to how media, combined with with their own laziness, manipulates them.
    They don’t realize how much of what they’re hearing and reading is a lie.
    Or at the very least shaded to direct an audience toward the desired conclusion.

    Take a line like this:
    “>play ran for three seasons, then was revamped in 2004 to focus on higher-impact specials such as …”
    That’s the current version of a line that used to read that ” >play was then cancelled due to low ratings”.
    Not quite the same thing, is it?

    It disturbs me when I see people using the trust of others to spread their propaganda and lies.
    I noticed it most clearly with Maffin, but Ghomeshi is no stranger to what I view as misdirection. A lot like a magician’s tricks. The truth is here in this hand, but look over here at the other one, where you’re being fooled into thinking something else is taking place.

    Had I not brought up how misleading the Guardian reference was, it would still be there.
    And the lie of it would still continue to be spread by Jian and by lazy, trusting organizations who invite Jian to their events and publish without questioning his “biography”. And when they do, they are lending THEIR credibility to his lie.
    And Jian, knowing it’s a lie, let’s them do it.
    He let’s a journalism prof state things that he knows are not true. He lets her say it to her class and to the public. He makes no move and utters not a sound to bring the facts in line with the truth.
    This doesn’t disturb you?
    This is not important to you?
    This is a matter of abusing public trust, taking advantage of a situation, exploiting a weakness for personal/professional gain.

    Another line:
    “He has appeared as a contributor or guest on programs ranging from CNN Today and The National, to Late Night with Conan O’Brien.”.
    You don’t find this offensive to your intelligence? You don’t see the shell game that’s being employed here?
    Jian was never a guest or a contributor to the Conan O’Brien show. Not either of those things, as those terms are commonly understood.
    Jian was not featured, as the word “guest” would indicate. Drummers in band are not considered “guests” when they perform as part of a group effort, any more than one person in 50 member gospel choir can claim they were a “guest” as compared to saying the more accurate “appeared” on the show.
    Jian ignores the other members of Moxy F. in order to give the impression that he appeared as a solo act, that his appearance was based on his own singular talent. He pretends the other musicians were not a factor, and yet without them he would not have been on that show. They must be a bit surprised to learn that the focus of their performance was primarily the talents of Jian.
    This is deliberate. It’s not an idle or minor omission to leave out that this was a group accomplishment.
    He uses this further on, saying that HE toured, and that HE shared stages with Bob Dylan.
    You know that Jian commissioned this bio. You know that he read it carefully, and approved its content, every word.
    You know that he distributes this to organizations as a factual and accurate representation of his skills and accomplishments.
    You know that the CBC, his employer, posted it word for word, lending further credibility to a lie. And Wikipedia, in repeating the lie, then cites the CBC posting as being the proof that the Wiki entry is entirely accurate and verifiable.
    And all the while, Jian says to himself “this is easier than I thought”.

    And the CBC is ok with that.
    They publish what they’re handed without checking to see if it’s true.
    They publish it on their web site, for the entire world to see and, presumably, believe.
    This is a reflection of the lower and lower standards that the CBC is willing to go to “sell” their product.
    If this is acceptable for Jian to get away with, then why not do the same with everyone who appears on the CBC?
    What difference does it make? Does anyone care any more?

    I do appreciate your taking the time to “engage” with me on this post.
    I think these exchanges are more a dialogue than a debate, and readers take what they will from each of us.
    I won’t belabour the part about “puddle duck”. His comments speak for themselves:
    – Glass houses, stones, yada yada yada
    – Hey she’s f@*kin’ HOT!
    – Butt, kiss, mete-data., China, ho oh hoo

    And you may think that “sexing up” a document is just a harmless, insignificant prank, but do you remember the last time someone “sexed up” a document, and what the consequences were?

    It betrays a new culture at the CBC, that says it’s fine to mislead the public. No biggie.
    But where then do you draw the line?

    Now would you be kind enough to answer the question I posed at the outset …
    – what do you think made the CBC change the Jian Ghomeshi “bio”?

    • Bonspieler of the Inanities
      Posted July 26, 2010 at 3:42 pm | # | Reply to this masterpiece

      Allan, re-read your posts here. Is everything you say strictly true, or, like the liars you deplore, do you exaggerate, embellish, and elide to advance your cause?

      Here, for example: you write, “… the reason for the mention of “This Is That” was to let Pat Kelly make the point that unless people read, listen, and view ALL media critically, anyone and everyone can easily be fooled.” This is not what Pat Kelly said. Go back to your original post, and the article you quoted, and re-read what he did say.

      You say: “Tod Maffin lies about pretty much everything….” Is this a true statement, Allan?

      To me you say: “…you may think that “sexing up” a document is just a harmless, insignificant prank, but do you remember the last time someone “sexed up” a document, and what the consequences were?” How about some intellectual honesty, Allan? Also missing: a rational sense of proportion.

      It may be, Allan, that your obsession with Jian’s bio is what made the CBC change it. Stick a feather in you cap, buddy, and move on.

      • Allanjoined April 10, 2009
        Posted July 26, 2010 at 6:33 pm | # | Reply to this masterpiece

        Don’t own a cap, and no interest in adorning anything with “a feather”.
        And I stand by all my remarks, including my application of the Pat Kelly quote.
        I simply chose to paraphrase the remark when referencing it in the comments, and I think it’s a fair statement.

        If you take any time to review the work attached to Tod Maffin’s current career, I think it’s fair to say that he lies about most of it, that it comes from a place of bullshit. He has no credentials to back up the claims he is making about himself, and there are a lot of claims.

        “Sexing up” a document has consequences, be they large or small.
        Every phrase that is meant to mislead the reader is an injustice, an insult, and harmful.
        You can claim that inaccuracies are trivial, but I see them as deliberate and calculated.
        And they have a way of spreading


        http://www.speakers.ca/ghomeshi_jian.html


        STILL posted by the CBC
        http://www.cbc.ca/books/canadareads/about.html

        You don’t know why the CBC changed the statement they had published, but you do know that they did.
        They had to, because the statement was false.
        Who wrote that statement?
        And why was all my correspondence ignored? Why did the CBC hold off as long as they could, appearing to continue to support a statement they knew was false?

        You want to point out details in my remarks?
        Where did I say that the CBC poll results were implausible?
        I was saying that the story reads as if it’s fake, and yet looks credible.
        If you look, you’ll notice that the story is missing elements that are usually found in most newspaper stories – such as, the title of the survey or the document being written about.
        And while two people are quoted, neither are identified.
        Can you suggest one valid reason why a “spokesperson” for the CBC would not be identified by name?
        Doesn’t that strike you as odd?
        That’s very much National Enquirer level journalism, with their patented “a close friend”, “sources tell …”, etc.

      • Allanjoined April 10, 2009
        Posted July 26, 2010 at 6:56 pm | # | Reply to this masterpiece

        If Public Radio International says it’s true …

        • Anonymous
          Posted July 27, 2010 at 8:31 am | # | Reply to this masterpiece

          Jian doesn’t appear to have been picked up by any American stations, even though it is available to them. (Cheap!)

          http://www.pri.org/q.html

          • Anonymous
            Posted July 27, 2010 at 9:36 am | #

            Maybe once the Americans find out Jian is spreading the gospel in the Philippines with World Vision, they’ll change their minds?

  8. Bonspieler of the Inanities
    Posted July 23, 2010 at 2:28 pm | # | Reply to this masterpiece

    But puddle duck/Denis/Dorothy is right, Allan. Your post is nuts.

    Jian’s bio is, like the man himself, a tiny bit sexed-up.
    Tech-talker Tod, ex-CBC, by most people forgotten, has not updated his CV.
    “This Is That” is a comedy program that fooled at least one junior arts reporter in Toronto. (http://arts.nationalpost.com/2010/06/29/ctv-purchases-the-set-from-friends/)
    A poll about the CBC produced a result that seems implausible to someone (you, Allan) whose keen attention to all things CBC seldom notices anything not related to George and Jian.

    This isn’t just a case of one of these things being not like the others, Allan. None of this things is like the others.

    The self-styled “national” newspaper failed to recognize a CBC comedy program as a comedy program. Why? Yes, the Post has hardly any sense of humour. Here’s what is news: it seems there may be a CBC comedy program that doesn’t need to remind you, the entire time, that you’re listening to crazy madness. “The Debaters,” anyone? No? COME ON, MAN! ARE YOU KIDDING ME? IT’S HILARIOUS!

    When “Wire Tap” first aired, some listeners thought the conversations were real, not scripted and rehearsed. Was it because we were “accustomed to lies” in 2004?

    The item about buying the “Friends” sitcom set neatly captures the extravagant tawdriness of CTV. “This is That” might actually be funny. When since “The Great Eastern” spin-off “Sunny Days and Nights” has it been possible to say that about a CBC comedy?

  9. PoonGirl
    Posted July 22, 2010 at 10:57 pm | # | Reply to this masterpiece

    Maybe Dennis is like Cher, on his “goodbye tour” for the 20th time.

  10. PoonGirl
    Posted July 22, 2010 at 9:55 pm | # | Reply to this masterpiece

    You shouldn’t have posted that Allan, your new nick name is now “Scarecrow” hahahahaha.

    At least Allan is healthy enough to do manual labour without passing out of exhaustion like Dennis.

  11. puddle duck
    Posted July 21, 2010 at 10:15 pm | # | Reply to this masterpiece

    Okay, now it’s official… you Tea Makers are NUTS! Fuck, shit , piss! Now is that “edgy” enough for you crazy nose pickers?


Post a Comment

Your email is never shared.

Upload Files

You can include images or files in your comment by selecting them below. Once you select a file, it will be uploaded and a link to it added to your comment. You can upload as many images or files as you like and they will all be added to your comment.

Write for us