- January 30, 2012 - 09:00
A couple of points. Having no clue about the logical fallacy, "begging the question" raises the question about your journalistic cred. Calling for the Communist Broadcasting Corp to be an honest broker is laughable. To imply that the Wangster would be an unbiased moderator really demonstrates that your brain could use a white cane. Perhaps Bob, you should work on that birch junk in your eye and soft peddle the mote in Locke's.
- January 28, 2012 - 19:01
Paddy Joe: why don't just say you HATE CBC Here & Now. Just tell us how you really feel. You hate their production, you hate the way they present the news, well then, stop watching it & find something else on TV then.
- January 28, 2012 - 13:45
Bring it on ! The more information we can find out on this project the better. Up to now we have been living in a vacum. For a bunch of politicians who usually have the Gift of The Gab they have grown selectively quiet. Maybe they don't understand the project enough to talk about it.
- January 28, 2012 - 11:12
I agree with the overload on weather forecasting. I can look down on my phone and see what the weather will be like in 3 seconds...we don't need 25% of a news broadcast devoted to "Weather-Porn"
- January 28, 2012 - 09:27
From what I have seen of "journalism" lately it is just a compilation of news releases. And as for a debate, I always thought that to have an informed debate you needed facts and this is exactly what is missing at present time. The Provincial Government is holding all the cards and using every trick in the book not to release them.
- January 28, 2012 - 09:23
I find it nearly impossible to read the commentary by Bob Wakeham. He is definitely not my style. I look for informed debate, not jounalist entertainment. I disagree with Wakeham's call for a show packed with "he said- she said" attracting an audience looking for the equivalent of a boxing match. However, with respect to the same topic, I draw readers' attention to the Saturday Telegram and the commentary by John Savage, "A plea for respectful academic debate". While I am not a fan of sarcasm, I agree with his conclusions. The debate is valid. Those who trust the credentials of the debating economists can then draw their conclusions. Personality and professional attacks draw the public away from informed debate and cheapen the news. I would go one step beyond what was written by Savage and say that the public must consider what they receive in the news. When a case has thousands of pages of evidence and months, if not years of work behind it as is the case for Muskrat Falls, it frightens me that we satisfy ourselves with 15-30 sound clips and at best two pages of facts in a newspaper, half of which is a repeat of facts from previous articles.
- January 28, 2012 - 09:21
Yes this would be excellent TV. Panel should included an expert engineer, economist, and media rep.
- January 28, 2012 - 09:15
Exactly not worth watching boring
- January 28, 2012 - 08:55
A CBC debate on Muskrat Falls would be great----but I wouldn't hold my breath. I used to tune into Hear and Now when it had some solid news and some " journalism "------All I see is now is weather hits ad nauseam, car accidents and turkey drives--