SunTV doing it's job...pissing off the parasite left
Sun News interview elicited record complaints, says watchdog
Haha!
Good work Krista! Part 2 of the interview is here, good fun.
Cartoon Round Up....
1 minute ago
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
A Star comment...
LOL
How to sink your career with one interview
Krista Erikson will never work as a serious journalist ever again after that interview. What a shame, she was on the fast track to the top of the CBC.
Irony is lost on the left.
"sacrifices for the good of the collective"
---
oh man...
I heard that and almost did a spit take;)
I can appreciate that Margie Gillis has passion for her work but that doesn't justify public money.
The Sun TV news crew should just let those they interview hang themselves. They need no help in that, really.
Just my quick thoughts.
True they tend to sink themselves still it was fun to watch again;)
liberal supporter - there are shows on CTS that get better ratings than CBC shows that cost many times more to produce. Considering what we're getting for _our_ money, you might not want to bring this up.
Also, CRTC rulings on carriership are not a direct grant; public money for the arts is. And why artists are owed a "stipend" for their work is a continuing mystery to me. Should the gov't be in the business of creating official art by its imprimatur? By funding art, the gov't will eventually - HAS been forced to - withhold funding when that art has openly attacked gov't. There is no good reason for this relationship to exist. If you're against censorship - and I'm making a serious leap by suggesting that someone who calls themself a liberal is - they you have to oppose gov't funding of art, since by the logic of the artists themselves, withholding or canceling funding IS censorship, right?
Multiply this kind of waste by several thousand times and it's easy to understand why we are being taxed into poverty.
Centralized arts funding should be replaced with tax credits for arts you want to attend. Free market. Gillis would be a much better talker if she had to sell her dance a bit more.
Have a run through the funding provided by Heritage Canada and the Canada Council, etc etc, there is 20 billion a year in this and other discretionary spending wasted.
There is no point talking sense to LS Rick. Earlier this week he accused me of stalking - my own blog. You can't make up that sort of insanity.
What you are paying for:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N32YYPLmb-k
The "arts community" that Gillis refers to - and having lived amidst that community for many years I can say it's a lot less amicable than your average suburban block, on the whole - has been treated like a sacred cow for years by politicians, bureaucrats and media happy to pay tribute in words and money. (Though to be frank, the money really isn't all that great, and the words are really meant to make up in flattery what they can't in currency.) The sad result is that they've come to believe all that puffery, and react, as we can see with Gillis, with outrage when someone finally comes along and asks a few tough questions.
I do believe Gillis when she says that the majority of people in the arts don't make a lot of money, because it's true. But it's also true that a lot of people in the arts have managed to do very well, mostly by being in a favoured position with granting agencies, and by being closer to the spigot when it's turned on. They have as much to lose when we turn a hard light on arts funding as career bureaucrats when we start talking about shrinking government.
Gillis is right - she's managed to extend her career as a dancer years beyond what would be considered normal in a physically demanding discipline. One has to wonder, not unreasonably, how she's managed to do that. And I don't think it's because she eats well and stays limber.
rick mcginnis: "I do believe Gillis when she says that the majority of people in the arts don't make a lot of money, because it's true."
The thing is, most people don't make a lot of money -- so why is it the "arts" community that gets government subsidies and not, say, stay-at-home parents who, presumably play as important a societal role as artists?
It was very "interesting" when Maggie Gillis was asked how much money over the years she and her group had got from the government, she couldn't answer. She "didn't know." Hmmmm. When Ms. Erikson produced the statistics ($1.2 million over 13 years), Gillis unconvincingly demurs.
I have to say, however, that I was disappointed in Krista Erikson's interview techniques. She was very aggressive rather than letting the facts speak for themselves. Some viewers might even have felt sorry for the quiet, Uriah-Heep-demeanored Gillis, not the hoped-for result at SunTV!
Here's the thing, batb - anyone who becomes an artist because they want to be rich is deluded, and many of them are perfectly aware that they're in for a life of scrounging and poverty. The thing is - they made that choice. They can come over all grand and diva-like like Gillis and insist that "the art chose me!" or something as fatuous, but the fact is that the "starving artist" is a cliche so well known as to be a warning, even a job description. There's a lot of ego in every artist, so puffery like Gillis' talk of "the good of the collective" are just camouflage; artists are serving their own impulse and muse by persisting against what most people would see as economic common sense. Unfortunately, we've made them feel that they deserve our taxed support through years of fuzzy, self-flatting rhetoric about the centrality of the arts and the importance of the artist. It's perfectly natural that, after all this time, they've come to believe it.
When government funds the arts, it becomes the arbiter of what is acceptable public art. For those artists that are not funded they can claim that their art has in effect be censored. What would be interesting is if a published list of artists that have applied for the grant. This list would identify the grant; the number of applicant;the artists' name and the government approved winner(s) of the grant. This way we could hear from those that both won and lost. We could find out what is the government approved criteria for art because ending this funding is a long way off.
.
.
That "39 year dancer" insisted her artsy fartsy funding spanned those 39 years, which allowed her to reach the top of her profession.
Implying that she was worth it.
We were always taught to stand up straight when sending semaphores.
Interesting how many of those parasite-left watch SunTV news.
Krista is super good. The CBSC needs to be flushed; they need 8 months to interpret the semaphore? Or 8 months to watch SunTV news?
.
.
... my two cents.
She's no Bob Fosse.
Fact is, if you're good and truly creative in your "art", it's always recognized in our society and you are rewarded very well for your work.
[maybe not in one's lifetime, but eventually.]
But nobody pays either attention or money for mediocre, insipid, derivative and uninspired creativity, even if it's packaged as "art", and is supposed to be good for you.
There's a role government can play in granting young talent to develop, but it sure looks to me like the $20 billion that's being spent on self-indulgent individuals expressing themselves at best makes mediocrity the cultural standard.
Like with the CBC's $1.4 Billion tax-payer funded budget, I'm even more offended by the total crap output we get by way of a "cultural product" than I am about the money itself.
Paul said: "Like with the CBC's $1.4 Billion tax-payer funded budget,"
A good question could be how many artists in the film industry find their art product being picked up by CBC?
Ann; the answer is none.
There are CBC regulations that disallow anything that hasn't been locked-down by the union(s) as per all the idiot contracts committees of administrators keep signing. And everything from creative to production to broadcast has to go through layers of pink-curtain committee approvals.
Definitely an environment that can only produce crummy knockoffs of "something else" at 12x the real cost.
It's insidious.
[by comparison, the likes of Joe Roth with a staff of 6, was entrusted to spend a minimum $50 million per picture, produced over 200 top-notch movies over a 10 year period. Some are still among the best movies made.]
NB: didn't know this until recently; - Used to be that the public broadcaster was a place you got started and if you were good enough for a private broadcaster to offer you better money it was expected that you would move on, otherwise you were turfed because you obviously didn't have the chops.
These days it seems to be the other way around with CBC paying premiums for some lame-brained committee's decision to get a private broadcasters talent.
[and then turn the production into total crap as per CBC bottom of the barrel standards.]
Thank you, Flea, for the video. It shows Margie's abilities are light years far from being a talent of the rank of Maya Plisetskaya.
It is some mediocre free-style dancing a la Isadora Duncan. Her inability to master basic techniques is hidden behind claims about extressing her free spirit.
Duncan was one of the first to "boost" her modest talent with support for the Marxist ideology. Now that field is way too crowded - Margie is not the only "progressive" dancer who needs public money.
In the comments below the interview and The Star article, they had calls to boycot SunTV's sponsors - and that comes from the "compassionate" Left. Somehow I don't see Dr. Ho getting all worked up about the plight of the art community in Toronto and divesting his rubber soles from the channel.
Nice to see that the "liberal supporter" is back to endorse the party line. BCF, I never got the "blog disruption manual" LS is talking about. I can use one. Does Harper distribute it by invitation only?
Like everything else written by LS it is a figment of a fevered imagination.
"She's no Bob Fosse."
Who is, these days?
Margie Gillis, who I know by only her reputation alone.
She's typical of a whole bunch of artists I used to know, in an unnamed city(!), who spent half their time applying for government grants. They were all from affluent families. 'Funny thing that.
Margie Gillis' parents were Olympic skiers Gene Gillis and Rhona Wurtele. Having family members in that class, I know how many contacts it's possible to make in order to put you at the top of the list for any government prizes being doled out.
Gillis has made a very good living off the public teat. I don't care if she declares that government funding is "for the good of the collective." What hogwash. It's good for her. End of story.
@Rick;
I'm sure there's some amzing things going on dance-wise, in NYC a thte moment. Always is. It's that kind of place.
I'm not sure Erickson was "on the fast track to the top of CBC." Didn't they banish her from their Ottawa bureau and kick her downstairs to Toronto for re-education because she had done something unprofessional?
Still, having someone who once worked for Brian Mulroney on their staff must have been very difficult for all involved. I can well imagine what the workplace climate must have been like.
Oh, and the entitlement attitude of that bitch she's interviewing represents everything that's wrong with Canada today. The artsy-fartsy types seem to think they are God's gift to humanity. If they are, why on God's green earth do they need taxpayer's money in order to survive? Surely they can find some corporate sponsorship if they are that crucial to the wellbeing of society.
I wonder if anyone has ever done a study of what percentage of the Canadian population attend or otherwise consumes the output of our publicly funded arts "community"?
I'll bet you their numbers are notlegion. Most, I suspect, will have visited an art gallery at least once in their lives, and had to suppress the urge to hurl or giggle hysterically while there, but how many are regular theatre goers or have attended dance performances even once in their lives?
There must be a reason the corporate "community" isn't into arts sponsorship in a big way.
"She's typical of a whole bunch of artists I used to know, in an unnamed city(!), who spent half their time applying for government grants."
Let's see - Vancouver, Winnipeg, Toronto, Montreal?
The artsy-fartsy types seem to think they are God's gift to humanity. If they are, why on God's green earth do they need taxpayer's money in order to survive? Surely they can find some corporate sponsorship if they are that crucial to the wellbeing of society.
Well, in point of fact they can't. It being that government subsidized "art" is more fartsy than artsy.
She sounds so gay...
"Well, in point of fact they can't. It being that government subsidized "art" is more fartsy than artsy."
EXACTLY!!!!
Margie Gillis. Never heard of her before, hope to never hear of her again.
>>