CBC and Camp Weaverland vs reality

So the British Columbia provincial election is over. Premier Christy Clark and the BC Liberals (contra all the pundits’ and pollsters’ great expectations) came through with flying colours that landed them – and their platform – a majority government, with more seats in the provincial legislature than they had before the election was called!

No doubt trying to make the best of a bad situation unfolding, CBC’s green-heart-on-sleeve coverage on May 14 was, well, appalling!

They continued to honk for Weaver‘s unearned laurels at least twice during the early part of the evening. Whether my unacknowledged tweet:

@cbcnewsbc You need to change your Weaver script! Nobel Prize not for science & awarded to IPCC (Panel of nations) http://wp.me/pJtnm-1c6

caused them to drop this over-hyped example of deliberately misleading Weaver-spin, I have no way of knowing. But I do know that in their post-election coverage of their favourite “star”, the CBC was right back at it:

Greens not to blame for NDP loss, says leader Sterk

Green-NDP vote split allowed Liberals to win 12 ridings, say critics

weaver-we-are-the-vote

In the aftermath of the NDP failure to win the B.C. elections, some pundits are blaming the Green party for splitting the vote on the left, but not everyone agrees with the analysis.

[…]

[…] the Green Party’s first MLA Andrew Weaver denied the Green Party split the vote.

“We didn’t split the vote. We are the vote in Oak Bay-Gordon Head,” said Weaver on Tuesday, after winning his seat. [emphasis added -hro]

“We are the vote …”?! That’s almost as inane and meaningless as another Weaverism™ that appeared in the National Post on the eve of the election:

“Government doesn’t have the information, government is there to facilitate the information.”

The reality is (to use one of Weaver’s repeated appeals to his own authority – and repeatedly unchallenged – prefaces in an “interview” with CBC’s Evan Solomon on Solomon’s “Power and Politics” show, complete with yet another viewing of Weaver’s unearned Nobel laurel), as even the Weaver-cheerleading Victoria Times-Colonist acknowledged yesterday:

Oak Bay-Gordon Head is a relatively affluent riding. The 2006 census reported a population of 48,420, with 36,500* voters [emphasis added -hro]

* Eligible voters in Oak Bay-Gordon Head for this election was 37,443. Total votes cast in all 134 polls in this riding was (courtesy of National Post):

obgh-votes

Your math may vary (as, evidently does that of Andrew “I’m a climate scientist and we are the vote” Weaver) but by my count, of the eligible 37,433 voters in Oak Bay-Gordon Head a mere 9,602 (< 26%) actually voted for Weaver! I know we have a first past the post system of voting which does have some inherent problems, but that’s the way it is.

However, Andrew “we are the vote” Weaver seems to be (conveniently?!) oblivious to the fact that those who did not vote for the CBC’s “star”, garnered 14,351 votes – a “significant” number in excess of those garnered by Andrew “we are the vote” Weaver.

Did the CBC tell its readers/listeners/viewers about Weaver’s [free speech for me but not for thee] libel suit against the National Post (and the “novel” remedy he’s seeking)? Not bloomin’ likely!

Did the CBC tell its readers/listeners/viewers about Weaver’s practice of slamming the virtual door in the face of those who dare to ask … uh … inconvenient questions? Not bloomin’ likely!

But I digress …

Did the CBC learn any lessons about its dutiful recitation of Weaver-spin vis a vis the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize awarded to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and Al Gore? Not bloomin’ likely!

As the right-side visual “effects” in Solomon’s “Big Green win” story at one point predictably and dutifully visually reiterated:

cbc-weaver-post-win-solomon

Did the CBC choose to repeat the Weaver-spin unearned laurel on which he continues to choose to rest? You betcha! The CBC piece at the top of this post dutifully reported:

Weaver, a Nobel Prize winning climatologist, defeated long-time Liberal incumbent Ida Chong by about 2,400 votes in the Vancouver Island riding of Oak Bay – Gordon Head.

In light of all the above, I invite my readers to gimme’ one good reason why I – or anyone – should trust the word of Andrew “we are the vote” Weaver, or of the cheer-leading green-heart-on-sleeve CBC. Perhaps one might be forgiven for the rather distinct impression that – with a throw of the election dice – the voters of Oak Bay-Gordon Head have landed on one of the squares of Monopoly … the climate change game.

4 thoughts on “CBC and Camp Weaverland vs reality

  1. The ABC*, the BBC and the CBC — all government stations, all wedded to the Left/Green philosophy and all worse than each other in their own special ways.

    Is there any need for these publicly-funded entities in the modern world?

    * Australia

    • Good question, Rick. I don’t know what the “market share” of ABC and BBC might be, but here in Canada, CBC seems to be experiencing “diminishing returns” which – in the eyes of some – is perceived as an “audience crisis”. See:

      CBC’s Audience Crisis: CBC TV Audience is Down 40%, Lowest in History

      Perhaps if they surrendered their cheer-leading green-heart-on-sleeve advocacy and returned to their “duty to provide consistent, high-quality information upon which all citizens may rely” – in accordance with their “Journalistic Standards and Policies” – they might stand a chance of recovering.

      But they don’t appear to be taking any steps in this remedial direction!

  2. Hilary Still a bad result. FPP might be a lot of things but the bastards want preference voting or STV because government can then be decided in closed doors after the election just as we in UK did with the LibDems

  3. Cracks in the dam are appearing in the BBC’s approach to AGW/CC. Once the sceptics start getting a larger share of air time ,the alarmists will have to debate the science and not just hide behind hyperbole.

    Historically, it’s been difficult to get them across the table facing sceptics (q,v, Gavin Schmidt vs Roy Spencer) and every refusal will undermine the strength (such as it is) of their arguments.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s