Skip to main content

one hand washes the other and stabs you in the back

it's bad enough that the crtc is in bed with big telecoms, backing their demands to limit internet usage for no logical reason (other than wanting to be able to bill canadian consumers more and put a choke hold on smaller competitors at the same time) but now it turns out they're both having a three-way with the cbc? send help.

the cbc is supposed to serve the public interest (then again, so is the crtc), although its role as a public watchdog isn't nearly so entrenched here as it is in countries such as sweden or holland. still, you'd like to think that they are at least dedicated to presenting a comprehensive and multifaceted debate on issues of importance to the canadian populace. but, as it turns out, they're a little reluctant.



this past week, the current, one of their flagship current events shows, aired a discussion and debate on the subject of the crtc's decision (informed by private, for-profit entities like my bete-noire bell canada) to allow telecommunications providers to cap internet usage and bill consumers when they exceed their monthly ration. after being publicly embarrassed by protest and rebuked by the government, the crtc has put the decision under review. so the cbc rightly thought this would be a good time to let canadians hear the different points of view on the debate.

invited to participate were leonard waverman, a business school professor representing the perspective of the telco giants, steve anderson of openmedia.ca, the site that started the petition to have the decision revisited and andrew wright from halifax's chebucto community net, the country's second oldest freenet (well, almost free, since circumstances force them to charge a nominal amount for the service that they provide). the idea, one assumes, was to present opinions from the points of view of corporate interests, those who are angered by the specific decision and that of the larger public. The three were invited to present their arguments, after which they would engage in a debate.

although i didn't hear the original broadcast, i'm told that wright stood his ground and pointed out errors in the statistics presented by waverman in support of the telcos arguments. apparently, calling your opponents out on their presentation is a big no-no, since wright was told afterward that he wouldn't be needed for the debate portion of the show. that's too bad, because this is someone with a lot of experience in the area of public access, beyond the issues surrounding this decision.

normally in these circumstances, i'd just listen to the show on line and see what he said to get himself uninvited to the debate party, but unfortunately, i can't do that, because the cbc chose to expunge his contribution from the portion of the show that they made available on line. so the debate that one can listen to now is free of the voice that challenged the corporate representative on his facts. way to go, cbc. for an organisation tasked with representing the public interest, you're doing a great impression of playing on the side of corporate power.

Comments

as long as you're here, why not read more?

long suffering

i've been meaning to write this post for a while, but, every time i get started, something happens that makes me rethink portions of it, to add or subtract or consider a different way of looking at things. the post was originally going to be my take on a #metoo statement, but i ended up making that post on my personal facebook page. [it's not that i don't love you all, but there are a few things i'm not comfortable putting in the entirely public sphere.] but beyond joining the #metoo juggernaut, i wanted to write something about the wave of sexual assault revelations that continues to swell over the north american media landscape that wasn't about me. then i realised that that was a little more complicated than just writing "so, lotta sex rapes happenin' these days, ain't there?" or whatever it was that i was going to say.

so i tried writing something about just a part of it: the media coverage or the entertainment industry or the politicians or …

jihadvertising?

i keep seeing this ad for tictac candies:



am i the only one who finds the suicide bomber clown at the end a little unnerving? all the nice natural things like the bunny and the [extinct] woolly mammoth and the fruit get devoured by a trying-to-appear-nonthreatening-but-obviously-psychotic clown who then blows himself up. congratulations, tictac, i think this ad has landed you on about a dozen watch lists.

oh and by the way, showing me that your product will somehow cause my stomach to explode in a rainbow of wtf makes me believe that doing consuming tictacs would be a worse dietary decision than the time i ate two raw eggs and a half a bottle of hot sauce on a dare.

making faces :: getting cheeky

blush might just be the last thing that a beauty lover comes to appreciate, seeing as it can be a matter of slight degrees that separates one product from another, and it's most difficult to tell from just swatching a product how it's going to look. and it did take me a long time to appreciate that, despite loving my refined pallor and believing that my natural rosy flush was more than enough of a blush for me, blush is my friend. it softens, sculpts, perfects and, although you might not see it at first blush [yuk yuk yuk], it is something that subtly harmonises with the other colours in a look to make it "complete". yes, it's the most tricky thing to pull off when you're wearing something that doesn't mesh with your own undertones. but it's also the thing that can take a face from gloomy to glowing with a swish of the magic wand known as a makeup brush.

highlighters are an even trickier lot, since many of the more brilliant ones have a tendency to e…