Wednesday, December 7, 2011

A reader's comment CBC wouldn't publish

CBC is claiming credit for breaking a story that appeared here three days before they first touched the issue, without even a hint of acknowledgement of Northern Insights. I left a comment suggesting a source credit but the CBC moderator refused to post the comment.

CBC first reported about Art Kirkner's $188,681 expense account for 2010 on Tuesday. Today, they make this statement,
"... following a CBC News report that revealed a huge expense account payout to a former executive....

"The Tuesday report revealed that Art Kirkner — hired in 2008 as an ICBC vice-president from the U.S. to help cut costs in ICBC’s claim centre system — filed $188,681 in expenses in 2010 on top of his salary and bonuses of more than $315,000."
Perhaps CBC should have credited Northern Insights, the online news and commentary site that first revealed this information Friday, Dec. 2.

Where the money goes - ICBC top 50 - 2010


Recommend this post

15 comments:

  1. Pretty unethical.....and then they wouldn't even post your comment! I guess it's called saving face Norm.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Very disappointing performance, if you ask me.

    Norm ... could you spare the time to submit this issue to an Executive CBC Producer or upward? It's one of those procedural roadblocks which doesn't need to be there at all ... if there are vestiges of the old CBC left, somebody will care enough to fix it.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I sent an email to Wayne Williams, CBC News Director for BC, complaining about their claim to have "revealed" the Kirkner info, without sourcing it. Their refusal to post my comment is a different issue. Given that refusal, I expect them to claim they developed the item on their own.

    ReplyDelete
  4. By endless plodding through ICBC documents, financial statements and annual reports, the most significant of which was published in June.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I'd say you have cause to complain then; even if it will likely fall on deaf ears. The media has a bad habit of not acknowledging the work of anyone outside of professional circles.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Even Global ran with it last night without any credit to you. Sad.
    I'm done with the MSM.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I got the information from 5-month old ICBC documents and was first to publish a story about ICBC executive salaries and expenses. However, I don't own the story. I hope that it gains sufficient notice that everyone becomes aware. I was though ticked off that CBC claimed to be the ones that "revealed" or uncovered the story. That was dishonest and leaves all of us wondering how much CBC News should be trusted.

    ReplyDelete
  8. They shouldn't be. Period. They've proven that.

    ReplyDelete
  9. The media of today, are a disgrace to their professions. They are nothing other than, government propaganda machines.

    Why do not the media report, Campbell took $778 million out of ICBC? Money that should have lowered our vehicle insurance.

    We remember your post, regarding the outrageous salary's of ICBC. Shame on them. Shame on CBC.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I'm beginning to suspect commenters get flagged or something. I made a comment on the above issue, and surprise, surprise, it wasn't accepted either.

    Now I'm trying to comment on "Oilsands pipelines would boost economy, study says", and my comment has appeared though others that seem to have been submitted later are present. I was pointing out that Transcanada Corp gave the U of Calgary School of Public Policy a million dollars earlier in the year, a fact that wasn't mentioned in the story.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Art Kirkner and C Beaque and a few others on your list don't actually work for ICBC anymore. There have been several other people let go - like Kirkner was - in the last several months. Also what does the CEO or Financial Director at CDI make? How about in Saskatchewan where insurance is also government run? Compare apples to apples so we can really see if there's a reason to feel ripped off.

    ReplyDelete
  12. So what if anyone left? The list I showed was for fiscal 2010, clearly marked as such. I am not impressed with the leapfrog game played by senior executives who claim they must pay themselves more to match the other guys who decided they had to pay their top guys more.

    The ratio between top paid people in companies does not compare at all to what it was not too many years ago. Look at my article on Nov. 21, 'Deeply corrosive changes.'

    Executive pay should be radically simplified to halt spiralling awards that are “corrosive” to the economy and threaten to create the type of inequalities last seen in the Victorian era, the High Pay Commission has said after a year-long inquiry...

    “There’s a crisis at the top of British business and it is deeply corrosive to our economy,” said Deborah Hargreaves, chair of the commission...

    “When pay for senior executives is set behind closed doors, does not reflect company success and is fuelling massive inequality it represents a deep malaise at the very top of our society,” she added.

    John Varley, Barclays’ top executive in 2010, earned ...169 times the earnings of an average British worker, whereas in 1980 Barclays’ top pay was just 13 times the average. Total earnings of the bank’s chief were 4,899 per cent higher than 30 years ago.

    At BP, the boss earned 63 times the company’s average, while the 1980 multiple was 16.5.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Hi Norman, it's likely neither the CBC nor it's director of moderation ever saw your comment or your complaint. Moderation is fully outsourced and handled by individuals scattered all over the world through ICUC Moderation of Winnnepeg.

    Check out httP://home.cogeco.ca/~actater for the full story.

    ReplyDelete
  14. It wasn't so very long ago that Canadians had the opportunity and the privilege, as readers of CBC news stories, to participate in the dialogue by posting comments following a story. This is no longer the case. Comment moderation at CBC has become so limiting and draconian in it's nature, so censoring in it's own role, that the reader comments section following many important stories has been throttled to near non-existence. CBC moderation of reader comments is getting worse as every day goes by. Canadians who pay a billion dollars a year for this organization are getting a poor return on their investment, and while our Charter or Rights allows us the privilege of free speech, and one would think the national broadcaster's stories would be an opportunity for Canadians to engage in a dialogue, the opportunity has been throttled back to a trickle. How do they do this? (1) by imposing a highly censored filter on anything which challenges the ideas being put forward by the main published story itself. If it is any way critical of content of the CBC story, for example by pointing to elements that have a contentious nature, or by challenging the 'sources' of their story, chances are you'll be filtered out. (2) by slowing the publishing of comments to a point that it takes hours (4,5,6) for comments to even appear. By doing this they deliberately discourage interest and the following of the conversation among Canadians that follows the story. (3) by squeezing the window of opportunity to comment down from days to what appears to be only hours now .. readers have little opportunity to get involved with the 'small' window of time that is available to participate. It has perhaps gotten worse since some of the implementation of Harper's C-51 began to kick in, and so any challenging of the official story (which has been proven so many times to be absolutely false, misleading disinformation and propaganda), any contest to the narrative which is presented by the story, is quickly removed. Mark Twain once said that "If you don't read the news paper, you're uninformed. If you do read the newspaper, you're misinformed." The appearance of alternative sources of news has been a major challenge to the MSM, but they have been the cause of their own demise through the telling of their false narratives. Many readers responding on this issue have said that the 'reader comments' were the best part of CBC stories, because it was in there that one could read the pulse of the Canadian people. It's true; the comments have often been the best part of the story, with frequently better crafted, more insightful, intelligent writing than the main story itself. As with anything one has to separate the wheat from the chaff .. it's like mining for diamonds, but there is often some very intelligent, informed comment being posted. It's criminal that Canadians are moderated by a company in another part of the world, too (I.C.U.C.) .. this company is utterly failing in it's responsibility to Canadians 'and' the CBC .. their moderation is driving readers away. CBC fails Canadians once again by imposing this draconian control over the publishing of reader comments, and this militant censoring of reader feedback. It's offensive, and a lot of people are abandoning the broadcaster for this reason alone. I certainly am. Canadians would be far better served if the billion dollars a year that goes into this white elephant were spent on something more worthwhile. Shut CBC down; they are not worth it any more.

    ReplyDelete

COMMENTING

This is an archive only of items published before April 22, 2016. These and newer articles are available at:

https://in-sights.ca/

If you read an article at this blogger site, you can comment on it at the new site.

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.