Wednesday, May 31, 2006

CBC Has 113 Staff Assigned to cover Ottawa?

Got to check this one out!
Hat Tip to CBC Watch.
Link on the Title above or click the link button to see who........

The mind boggles.
Does it take this many people to produce so little and what is produced ... of so little value!

" ..................
CBC's Parliamentary Press Gallery contingent
Does it really need this many staff to cover the Hill?
May 30, 2006

CBC employs
113 of approximately 415 listed active press gallery spinners and whiners. Is the Canadian taxpayer getting good crybaby value for the buck?........................"

Apparently "The Zerb" at the Red Rag "TorStar" is On Top of the story.........


" Bombs Away

I swear I saw a mushroom cloud rise over Ottawa Tuesday evening during the conclusion of a day-long touchie-feelie, training, sensitivity, group-hug session for CBC political journalists at the Crowne Plaza hotel....................... "

While going out of her way to put her own unique spin on this story Zerbisias has cobbled together some interesting information fromthe POV of the MSM insiders.

OH MY! Those poor people are being told to do some work for a change!
One interesting idea that I noted in the piece was the allusion to CBC "Dumbing Down" the news! REALLY? Isn't that an oxymoronic proposition?

I've got news for you kids...Too Little Too Late!

The Conservative government now has more ammunition to justify (as if we needed more) cutting CBC funding. Hey guys! The writing is On The Wall! You are over staffed with a bunch of underperforming people. Do the right thing and start cutting staff. Quit wasting the tax payers money. You have no justification for running an operation like this.

Check it out for yourself.




Blogger Joanne (True Blue) said...

Another Liberal boondoggle! They just keep cropping up.

5/31/2006 12:46 p.m.  
Blogger PGP said...

Well CBC is more than a Liberal thing.......but at least our Guy has the right take on the problem.

I'm betting there will be more news in the near future.

5/31/2006 2:51 p.m.  
Blogger Balbulican said...

I followed your link, PGP.

You do realize, don't you, that the list includes: national and local journalists (unlike most media), radio and television personnel (unlike most media) providing national coverage in two languages (unlike most media) for both news and current affairs operations (unlike most media)? That those journalists registered to the Press Gallery also do other assignments, but maintain their registration so that they can cover the hill as required? That the list includes producers, editors, and other non-broadcast personnel?

Sorry to get in the way of a good rant, but there you go.

5/31/2006 4:29 p.m.  
Blogger PGP said...

Well I'm open to being educated so thanks for the input.
However 113 out of 415?
Does CBC represent more that 1/4 of the news gathering and reporting in the capital?
How many does CTV have or CP or any other?
Is the coverage provided by CBC good enough to justify this operation?

I don't think so.

5/31/2006 8:55 p.m.  
Blogger Balbulican said...

Well, actually, it pretty much does.

Print media need one person...a reporter with a pen and a pad.

Radio crews are one, max two. But CBC radio feeds a local, national and international news operation, plus Canadian Press (a co-operative which pools coverage), all in two languages.

CBC TV also feeds local and national feeds, also each in two languages. A TV crew consists of minimum five folks on a shoot, plus all the post production folks back at the studio.

5/31/2006 10:29 p.m.  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Could someone let CBCwatch know that the 415 number appears to include the honorary and executives?

The groups are not-active or repeats respectively and would lower the number of active press gallery members to about 360.

So that means 113 out of 360 - closer to 1 in 3 than 1 in 4.


6/01/2006 10:17 a.m.  
Blogger PGP said...

Note to Balbulican - So everyone's got their official busy work to do.
And this is justified by the "Quantity? Quality? Accuracy?" what measure of value justifies this expenditure of resources?

Note to Mike - Thanks ...where did you get this info?

6/03/2006 8:40 p.m.  

Post a Comment

<< Home