JOHN CHUCKMAN

LETTER TO CBC RADIO’S SUNDAY EDITION ON INTERVIEW WITH DANIEL GOLDHAGEN

Michael Enright is such a fair-minded man, and one articulate in his fair-mindedness, when it comes to most things. Is it too much to ask that that fairness be applied and heard consistently?

The characteristics of a fair-minded person are just a few, and they comprise the gold standard if you will. He or she is willing to discuss almost any topic. He or she is willing to listen to all sides of an issue presented by others. And he or she is open to being convinced he may have been wrong, at least in part.

I think by this set of criteria that Michael and his producers fail, and rather consistently, on a long term basis when it comes to the related topics of Israel and anti-Semitism.

How many times over, say, the last half dozen years has Michael’s program had an articulate spokesperson for Palestinian rights and grievances? I can tell you: close to, if not actually, zero times.

How many times has the program had spokespeople for Israel’s interests or on the much-abused topic of anti-Semitism? I haven’t counted, but I know that it likely would average to as much as once a month.

That may seem to you not excessive, but I think it represents a continuing, subtle, and genuinely unfair practice. One supposes you don’t make it more regular, say every week, because you understand that heavy repetition of these views would generate hostility in your audience. But the issue of unfairness still is glaringly clear here.

Even as you read these words, Israel prepares to seize more of the West Bank and Jerusalem. No compensation is even given to those whose homes and farms are seized for the flimsiest excuse. And when they protest or resist, they are abused, arrested and often imprisoned. Every day millions of Palestinians, never having done anything against the Jewish people, are treated like the residents of an unrelenting police state.

So, how is it that Michael and his producers believe, as they apparently do, that there is only one side in these matters?

The very definition of the word “liberal” does not make it possible for a true liberal to accept these ugly practices. Yet invariably, when anyone objects to Israel’s behavior, he or she is labeled an “anti-Semite” by the government of Israel and its many apologists abroad. It is a dirty and abusive and inherently unfair tactic.

It is this practice which explains illusory increases in anti-Semitism in “statistics” compiled by Israel’s apologists.
I’m sorry but I do not apologize for speaking against the practices of one of the meanest-natured governments on the planet and that does not make me or millions like me any more anti-Semitic than Michael is.

So, please, if you cannot deal with this set of issues fairly – and history indicates you cannot – leave it alone entirely.

 

 

 

JOHN CHUCKMAN

POSTED RESPONSE TO A COLUMN BY PRESTON MANNING IN TORONTO’S GLOBE AND MAIL

Another pathetic secular sermon from Preston Manning.

The preacher has never quite been left behind by the manipulative, career politician, having blended into an unpleasant Right Wing identity with roots in Texas and the Midwest.

I recall a few years ago, as CBC Radio was quietly adjusting to unpleasant new realities in Ottawa determining its destiny, Manning received a brief show called “This I Believe.”

Each spot was introduced by Manning’s scratchy, whiny little voice and featured a notable Canadian giving a little lesson or sermon about something he or she believed.

It was pure dreck, annoyingly sentimental and at the same time virtually meaningless to anyone not sharing the person’s love for this or that often trivial notion.

Interestingly, the idea was lifted – lock, stock, barrel, and even the very words of the title – from the United States.

And that source, the United States, remains an enchanted one to Preston Manning, despite all of his protestations about Canada.

He is the self-appointed president of a self-created think tank, which just happens to be paid for by American oil money.

He is the man most responsible for Stephen Harper’s rise to destructive power, having selected him as a protégé many years ago.

And just like the American Right Wing they both so desperately admire, Manning wallows in a strange pool of vague religiosity, patriotic kitsch, and homespun notions which softens and disguises his relentless drive to push the people of Canada in a direction they really don’t want to go, towards American interests, American values, American special interests, and American hypocrisy.

Readers may enjoy:

http://chuckmancartoons.blogspot.ca/2009/09/canadas-harper-vision-thing-flag-over.html

JOHN CHUCKMAN

POSTED RESPONSE TO A COLUMN IN TORONTO’S GLOBE AND MAIL

Just one more proof of the trash CBC management is making of our once-proud radio network.

When Bill Richardson handled Canada Reads, listeners heard sly humor and the observations of an interesting, graceful mind.

Jian Ghomeshi and the people organizing his show have long ago demonstrated they have the Midas touch in reverse by turning gold into garbage.

Bringing on the guest who made these tasteless, and perhaps libelous, comments (Anne-France Goldwater, who called one author a terrorist and another a liar) shows the same lack of judgment shown when a certain unpleasant America hillbilly singer seriously embarrassed Ghomeshi on air.

And why was the unpleasant hillbilly or this “Judge Judy” type brought on air? To juice things up as only mediocrities like Ghomeshi and his producers would understand juicing things up. Once again, they were caught in a display of poor judgment and genuine incompetence.

The genuine humor is gone from Canada Reads because Ghomeshi, as proved through several past efforts of CBC executives pushing him on the radio-listening public, has no sense of humor worth listening to.

I recall, a few years back before he had his current show, when this boring man served as summer host on a show, dishing up day after day, as his idea of humor, a pathetic line about trying to read James Joyce’s Ulysses plus a few other inane attempts at humor.

I never wanted to hear his voice again, but he was given a big new show, all kinds of publicity, some big-name interviews, Canada Reads, and apparently a very large salary which CBC will not reveal.

As for the intellectual part of Canada Reads with Bill Richardson, well, Ghomeshi is nothing but a pop record promoter – not unlike a latter-day, Canadian version of Dick Clark. He has a totally uninteresting mind, and I never listened to Canada Reads again.

Well, they do say, ”time wounds all heels,” don’t they?

JOHN CHUCKMAN

 

RESPONSE TO AN INTERVIEW ON CBC RADIO

“Fresh Air” is the third program recently interviewing Kevin Sylvester about his children’s book.

Sylvester is a perfectly nice man, and I like him, but I turned the radio off.

I’m really tired of this kind of in-house “nepotism” at CBC Radio. It is unfair and abusive.

I know several publishers turned Sylvester’s book down, so I doubt it is some magical production. Indeed, I heard parts of it read, far too many parts, when he replaced Shelagh Rogers one summer. It was actually shameful that he was paid to host a show and his hosting consisted of many, many readings from his work-in-progress.

This making the rounds at CBC shows for free publicity is just wrong since he is both an ex-full-time employee and a current part-time employee. This is abuse of listeners and access to CBC Radio.

Even more, with all the authors in this country, why would one little children’s book – even if it wasn’t mediocre and the writer didn’t work for CBC – get this unwarranted attention?

I’d almost bet that the publisher who did take the book did so knowing full well it would get this kind of excessive, free promotion by his fellow CBC employees.

Simply wrong, and my respect for CBC Radio goes down with each iteration of this kind of behavior.

Is this one more aspect of the general dumbing-down going on, the Ghomeshi-izing of CBC?

JOHN CHUCKMAN

 

POSTED RESPONSE TO A COLUMN IN TORONTO’S GLOBE AND MAIL

Andy Barrie certainly is a man of intelligence and some talents, but I think this very interview reveals why it is a good thing that he is leaving the morning show.

This interview focuses on personal matters, and that is precisely what Mr Barrie does on his show.

I know more about Andy Barrie’s personal life and personal views than I do about anyone else on CBC Radio, indeed likely more than all the other people on CBC Radio together.

I know almost nothing personal about such outstanding CBC talents as Anna Marie Tremonti, Eleanor Wachtel, Bob McDonald, or Michael Enright.

But I know about Andy’s religious views, I know about Andy’s late brother, about his history in Montreal, about his history in the U.S., about Andy’s mother, about Andy’s late wife, about Andy’s health, and a good many other things.

I know too much about Andy, and especially his views. He cannot conduct a serious interview without making it almost as much about views or comments of his as the person being interviewed.

He inserts his views into almost everything, and I regard that as something of an abuse of listeners. I believe it was the third or fourth time he started in with the “I’m an atheist” stuff that I wrote in saying if I heard it once more, I’d puke. Not because I care in the least about atheism, but simply too much of the self-indulgent boy doing his adolescent bravado act

There is too much in Andy of the old Larry Solway days, the aggressive, opinionated telephone-in show host.

I like to hear the morning show for events, but I think it can only improve without the really huge ego.

JOHN CHUCKMAN

 

POSTED RESPONSE TO COLUMN BY ANDRE PICARD IN TORONTO’S GLOBE AND MAIL

Thank you, Andre Picard, for some good sense.

I have always thought that the SARS outbreak in Toronto was far overplayed. Contrary to the slap-yourself-on-the-back stuff we hear regularly about such a good job of management, much of it was actually botched.

CBC Radio, which should have better judgment, was one of the worst offenders. Bulletins all the time. Numbers all the time. No perspective at all. Thousands die every single year of regular flu and pneumonia alone. I’m sure the media contributed to the serious economic slump in Toronto.

Now we are getting the same rubbish again. Even perhaps false information.

The WHO has said there are only seven confirmed deaths so far, but the media keep reporting more than 150, a number which if even accurate is not a statistically significant health event in the world’s population.

Last, I would just remind people that modern medicine can do almost nothing against flu anyway.

I believe telling people to go to hospital is irresponsible. As far as going to your doctor, well you are lucky if you have one, so why put him/her at needless risk?

When you take someone to the hospital with flu, after waiting hours, you will be told to take aspirin, liquids and perhaps a diarrhea-prevention compound to avoid de-hydration, and rest.

There is nothing else to be done. Antibiotics are a useless waste for viruses. Anti-virals are often ineffective and costly.