Mr. Burman: I am responding to your response to the Jan.16/06 comments of Brian Noble of Halifax regarding the CBC not taking polls and leaving the only alternative to people who do seek out the polls, and those who can't avoid them, the biased coverage of the Globe and CTV.I agree that your election coverage has been excellent and am grateful for coverage that doesn't leave me switching channels immediately. That is in the question. The problem with polls is that they do influence voters who generally have no idea who the polsters are and what questions have been asked and have no idea that there could be a political bias at work. Recently on a CBC morning radio program on PEI a potential voter was asked how he was voting. His comment was that he usually voted Liberal but because the Conservatives were going to win he would vote for them to ensure representation for the Province in the ruling party. When asked why he was so sure of a Conservative victory he answered that it was all over the television. Pretty scary stuff and evident that polls as well as biased reporting do have a huge influence. If they are a necessary evil, offer a balanced polling option or as I would favour recognize them as unecessary and eliminate polls altogether. Again thanks for your coverage, I found the Your Turn programs with Peter Mansbridge excellent and very revealing.

I can't believe how much congratulatory twaddle there is here for the CBC's coverage when they missed another opportunity to have the leader of the most progressive national party debate his party platform. And by progressive, I'm not talking in the Paul Martin sense of the word (whatever that is), but of the Green Party. Like other posters I'm amazed that the single-issue Bloc is given a platform and not the Greens. At least, have a separate televised debate on the West Coast with the Green leader instead of the Bloc leader. At least, 15% are Green supporters (have voted Green before) in BC and a third to 50% of voters want to hear their policies. C'mon!

Tony Burman replies: Well, at least you should concede that one person's "congratulatory twaddle" can be another person's "insightful brilliance"! Seriously, I hear your point about the Green Party. But in fairness to the CBC, Jim Harris as the leader of the Green Party has been featured in special interviews on CBC Radio a number of times, and was one of the four leaders who took part in The National's "Your Turn" with Peter Mansbridge. Yes, these programs included Mr. Harris - and not Mr. Duceppe. As for his exclusion from the official Leaders Debates, I accept your unhappiness with this. But it was not solely determined by the CBC. The debates are staged by agreement among the parties and a consortium of broadcasters (CTV, Global, TVA, Radio-Canada and CBC) in accordance with applicable laws and regulations. The consortium attributed it to "editorial grounds". In a statement, the consortium stated that it "only invited the leaders of the four most prominent parties with representation in the House of Commons....At one time CRTC Guidelines for Broadcast Licensees required, in effect, that the leaders of all registered parties be included ... Following a legal challenge, the court determined that debates were not of a partisan political character. Accordingly the CRTC issued a new directive in March, 1995 specifically indicating that it was no longer necessary that debate programs feature all rival parties or candidates in one or more programs. The CRTC confirmed that the balance requirements of the Broadcasting Act would be met if 'reasonable steps are taken to ensure that their (broadcaster) audiences are informed of the main issues and of the positions of all candidates and registered parties on those issues throughout their public affairs programs generally.' The networks have committed themselves to provide ample coverage of other parties, particularly the Green Party, during this campaign. This has already been evident in the frequent appearances of the Green Party leader in many programs." So, for better for for worse, that was the reasoning.

Dear Mr. Burman,

Thank you for your insightful article. What I have missed most is a CBC initiative that would allow "the public" to determine what issues it wants to see discussed during an election campaign. At present it seems to be the political parties/leaders, with the "help" of the media, who determine the issues of the campaign. Would it be possible during future campaigns to survey a broad spectrum of Canadians, asking them what issues they would like to see debated and, prior to this, reach an agreement with all political parties that they will indeed seriously address the main topics as indicated by this survey?

As an example: I emigrated at age 25 from the Netherlands in 1957. During my nearly 50 years in Canada have not once heard any comment or report on the emergence and structure of the European Union. Not until I recently read the book "The European Dream" by Jeremy Rifkin did I become aware of the tremendous economic and political changes in Europe. It raised the question in my mind whether Canada should consider joining the European Union and thereby diminsh its too-close economic and political ties with the United States. An enormous topic, but well worth pursuing.

I highly recommend that you read the book (in your spare time?)

Sincerely,

Tony Burman replies: Thanks for your book tip, and I will look it up. Jeremy Rifkin is a provocative writer. As for your point about letting "the public...determine what issues it wants to see discussed during an election campaign", I agree with you. Or at least to a point. I certainly feel that "the public" - in whatever way we can assess that - should have more of a say. CBC News actually tried to do that during the last week in November before this election was called. In an extensive public opinion poll examining the Canadian mood as the campaign was set to begin, one of the key questions was asking Canadians what they regarded as the "most important issues". Several of our programs, including The National, explored the "answers" and followed up on these issues during the campaign. The results, by the way, listed these twelve issues as "the most important" when the campaign began on November 29: health care; "poor government/poor leadership"; the "sponsorship scandal"/government honesty; education; "poverty/homelessness"; environment; "crime/law and order"; "unemployment"; deficit; immigration; social issues; and "national unity". It is interesting, in hindsight, to identify which of these issues actually received attention during the campaign.

I normally stay away from the CBC as a political news source as I personally find it leaning leftward, however I will admit that during this 2006 election coverage the reporting has been more balanced. I don't want you to be a Liberal nor a Conservative media outlet. We have brains. Give us the straight facts and let us make up our own minds.

Thank you CBC for your balanced television coverage. Your day to day coverage flows nicely and is not just snippets and sound-bites. Even more impressive has been the website coverage which allows for more in-depth review of what has been said and by whom. The REALITY CHECK section, both on tv and the web, is an OUTSTANDING CONTRIBUTION that cuts through the obfuscation of all the politicians.Thank you so much for contributing to the edification of the Canadian public.

When liberally minded socialists are increasingly suggesting that the Conservatives would provide more favourable conditions for the NDP's platform -- you know we really need a majority government again. And I'm not proposing right-wing socialism.

I liked to watch the CBC late evening news, but when you had 2 or 3 party leader debates, the bias showed through. The tough questions, to the Governing Party were, non existant. You may have felt it was old news, but so was the other leaders past. Yet you spent more time trying to trip up your guest.

I am a social conservative and would like more tougher questions like; 1)Why was the Gomery Inquirey not given more powers to name names and suggest possible charges be laid.

2) was this only a window dressing to try & win another election, then sweep the issue under the rug. 3) where is the one & a half million pay back that was suppose to be put in a trust fund ? 4) was the $161 million given to CSP, hush money, when the Adscam was ongoing?

You just hammered away at the oppositions beliefs. He may have 10 beliefs and I only agree with 6, I would consider him a good candidate. If you agree with all 10, you will have a very uneventfull life and can be led anywhere. Everyone has different beliefs & aspirations. Yet if they do not have to conform to the CBC's, you are relentless in your pursuit. Back off. I switched to CTV news & found them unbias.

Dear Mr. Burman: Thanks for your article on the media role (and in particular CBC's role) to identify and shine a light on the real issues of interest to us, the voting public. If "boring" means that we - the decision makers - actually get the chance to understand the issues instead of merely reacting to emotional props and prompts, then i am all for being boring. I look to the CBC first for information, not sensation. Thx!

OK what's going on? I have been the biggest opponent of CBC for years, and for good reason. I don't care what your fan base says, the CBC has been the communication arm of the Liberal party for years. But, and I know I'm going to live to regret this statement, your coverage of this election has been a huge improvement. Please keep it up and don't make me eat my words.

I owe CBC an apology, for I was one of the people accusing the network of bias. I have followed the campaign with a fervor that I have not felt since Pierre Elliot Trudeau, and if CBC has done anything it was to help wake me from a political coma. I read the letters to the editor, and saw one theme. You are not making anyone happy! Good for you. Proof that you are in fact doing your job. Incidentally, another observation of the responses; the complaints of the obvious bias on the other two networks... however after watching Peter Mansbridge, last evening, I got my first real view of Mr. Harper and it wasn't as frightening as I thought. Thanks Peter.

I'm still undecided, just as I was in the last election. No matter where I end up putting my "X", I know I will feel horrible about the decision. Even if I decide not to vote, or spoil a ballot, I will feel the same way.

Liberal government of the last few years has turned my stomach. However, Steven Harper's socially conservative agenda turns my stomach even more. The NDP? Simply too far left. Green Party? Not on your life, given their comments about this province's seal hunt.

I know I'm not alone. Just about everybody I've debated the issues with is in the same boat.

I consider myself a centrist. A social liberal and a fiscal conservative. I believe that a large percentage of Canadians are also centrist. What does it say about Canada when a main-stream citizen like myself is so disgusted with the system and the parties? It says that this country needs a shake. Ottawa obviously has no clue as to what's going on in OUR minds.

It's a shame that no matter what I do, no matter who I vote for, I will have compromised my prinicples in some large degree.

"None of the above" would be the only option that would leave my conscience intact.

Although I would not be considered a "Political Junkie" I have been most impresed with the way the CBC has covered the 2006 election. Peter Mansbridge does a great job in making sure that all of the political candidates answer the questions that are put to them so that there is no sidestepping the question asked. Mark Kelley's trips across Canada bring differant people together is good as well. However my all time favourite is Rex Murphy. Rex knows how to cut to the quick on all issues and does a great services to the Canadian public. I always thought that Canada's two greatest debators would be Pierre Trudeau and Rex Murphy too bad that that could not be arranged.

CBC keep up the good work sure beats watching any of the American news progtams.

Robin Adair
Guelph ON

Sir,

I am impressed that you have allowed such a variety of opinions to be published about the treatment by the CBC on the political coverage of this election.

I still wonder what the actual true convictions of the cbc's staff and their executives are? Would this fact not have a great effect on the overal coverage of events including the election reports?

I know that in your opinion dedicated yournalists and producers have to be unbiased. You may believe this, however, the truth is that some cbc programs have been very biased without any rebuttals against very controversial topics.

Hopefully your most talented staff is able to improve on keeping every opinion free from any favourable treatment for both sides, left or right.

Most sincerely,
Marie Jalsevac

Tony Burman replies: We have never canvassed CBC staff and executives about their political views, and never will. Every once in a while, there are people who claim they have done this on a random basis, but we invariably discover that these surveys are bogus and politically-inspired. If we did such a survey, I’m sure it would indicate that CBC staff and executives mirror the overall population, reflecting a wide diversity of views. But these results would be irrelevant. What matters – and what only matters in the end - is what we put on air – on Radio and Television - and on our Online service, cbc.ca. Through every election campaign, we monitor our coverage very carefully. We measure the amount of time we devote to each party and their representatives; whether this coverage is ‘negative’ or ‘positive; and how our programs and journalists ‘frame’ the issues and viewpoints. We do this statistically in a variety of ways, using internal processes as well as outside research firms. And we do it in qualitative terms, by drawing on respected outside observers and experts – reflecting all political views – to assess for us the quality of our coverage, whether or not they see ’bias’, etc. CBC News does this every week so that we can ‘course-correct’ if we feel that we need to modify the direction of our coverage in any way. After the campaign, we will make a summary of these studies public. But I can tell you that, as of now, these studies indicate that the CBC has been fair, balanced and unbiased in our coverage. That may not be great news for those of you who want to accuse the CBC of ‘bias’, but I assure you that this is so.

I really want to thank everyone at the CBC for doing a bang-up job this time around. Although I am not usually a big fan of the CBC television news broadcast particularily during elections I have to say you all have done a great job. Now apply the ethics and approach you used to your everyday newscast.

Stuart Glass
Sudbury

I too say kudos to the CBC. I especially appreciate the blog forums hosted by you for all 308 federal ridings. I'm an avid poster on mine in an interesting race here in Vancouver Centre. This 21st century style of campaigning is almost a throwback to the old town hall meeting. Thank you CBC!

I must commend the CBC for not being so obviously and obscenely leaning to the left during Election 2006.It is no secret that CBC has been called the liberal division of the media.I am not a fan of state funded media and never will be,however I have appreciated the CBC's mostly objective reporting during this election

Something you wrote about Walter Lippmann has stuck in my mind: that he felt "unbiased news and better reporting could not replace the work of political institutions”. So then why was he (to him)wasting his time as a journalist?

He wasn't. A review of his biodata reveals that Lippmann was a journalist only up to World War I. When war broke out, he worked in the government for Woodrow Wilson. From there he became a columnist and a writer —- and author of his famous book "Public Opinion".

After WWI, Lippmann was reported by many to have become very disillusioned.

Lippmann was a brilliant man. He went to Harvard at age 17 and got his degree in three years. He is not the sort of guy who would take to having other people tell him what to do. No way would he have written these words about journalism had he still been a journalist himself.

The world wars plunged Lippmann and many others into a dark night of the soul. But this fall from grace would have been more profound for Lippmann, given the promise and passionate idealism of his early years. Unlike many others, I believe Lippmann never got past the darkness.

I just found this revealing Lippmann quote: "It is all very well to talk about being the captain of your soul. It is hard, and only a few heroes, saints, and geniuses have been the captains of their souls for any extended period of their lives. Most men, after a little freedom, have preferred authority with the consoling assurances and the economy of effort which it brings". -WL

In the end, Walter became a broken spirit. Sadly, we can be certain, then, that the last thing he would conclude is that we're all in this together. And indeed, he has written: "Love endures only when the lovers love many things together and not merely each other"-- WL.

To be truly unbiased, I believe journalism must balance reporting on obvious negatives with well-researched and thoughtful investigation of the many things that are still good and possible.

Tony Burman replies: I don’t quarrel with your final conclusion but I challenge your account of Walter Lippmann’s life. I think his journalistic legacy, in spite of some dark periods, was far more uplifting and inspiring. You write that he was “a journalist only up to World War 1.” If that’s true, then you have a very narrow definition of ‘journalist’. In fact, he became a syndicated newspaper columnist in 1931 and emerged as the most respected American journalist until his retirement in 1967. As his biographer Ronald Steel once wrote: “In his long career as America’s foremost political commentator, he confirmed not the gloomy parts of ‘Public Opinion’ but quite the contrary, its optimistic ones- its beliefs that government must serve the people, and that it could do so intelligently if the real nature of public opinion were understood.”

Good work, indeed. The only problem is, let's look at the comments above, the vast majority comes from east or BC, and most of criticizing ones are from Alberta. I believe most people seek their sources of information in an already biased way, consciously or otherwise. That's sad but unavoidable. It makes unbiased sources look lefty from the right point of view and generally would be deemed untrustworthy, while the centre-left side tends to be not so critical because of their generally more open and tolerant aaproach.

So how to make all the people tune in to listen to or watch what you have to say, this is a real challenge. One-issue vote could be really meaningful to a lot of voters. I am against it, but we cannot realisticly ask anyone to look at the big picture and be well informed of all opinions before casting the vote. To some, the big picture is just that one single issue, yes or no, simple as that. I agree with some of the comments above, and suggest budgeting CBC operations to fix the presence imbalance (drawn from one subject of this compaign) across all areas of Canada.

I'd like to see the real national, unbiased, uncommercialized news reporting agency. Keep up the good work and keep improving. Thanks.

I find myself torn as to vote for in this election. While I find myself in agreement with much of the social policies of the NDP like child and senior poverty, affordable housing and human rights, I am in agreement with the Conservatives on moral issues like abortion and same-sex legislation. One sure thing is that I am not voting Liberal because of the scandals.

The garage sale of The Hudson's Bay Corporation to Foreign Interests passes invisibly in the Smokescreen of the Election. I was disappointed but not surprised that the Business Arm of CBC heralded this as super/duper. The foreign takeover of the real estate alone should have set off at least one national alarm. Canada is being steadily Globalled up and Canadians obviously think that foreign pockets will pave our streets, pay our wages, and add to our history. We will never be able to buy back what we have literally given away. Westfair Foods- without the Union- tucks nicely into Walmartian plans for retail domination of our country. "Put On a Happy Face"... will replace Oh Canada as our anthem.

Three things:

1. The CBC may need to forget about neutral coverage. There is no one, I repeat, no one to counter the pro-business, pro-Conservative coverage of CTV and Can-West Global. We are at the point where the CBC must present an alternative approach or we are destined for right-wing governments from now on. The media has become very powerful in swaying public opinion as we here in B.C. can attest.

2. I agree that the CBC takes an Eastern approach. We need someone to show what the effects of right-wing policies mean and will mean for B.C. and the Prairie Provinces.

3. Thank you for focussing on the issues. I am sick to death of accusations, personality defects, mud-slinging and fear-mongering. You are a breath of fresh air whose days are probably numbered. (my own fear-mongering addition to the debate).

Ken

Tony Burman writes:

“But Lippmann felt there were real limits to what the media could accomplish. Unbiased news and better reporting could not replace the work of political institutions. Truth and news were not the same thing, he wrote. ‘The function of news is to signalize an event, the function of truth is to bring to light the hidden facts.’ ”

As was mentioned, this was written more than 80 years ago!! Does this mean that, today, a good reporter is excused from “bringing to light the hidden facts”? And if the answer is no, talking about current election coverage, who should, for example, “bring to light the main but hidden agenda of Harper? Also, why not ask party leaders to summarize (without demagogy) their VERY basic political views on society and how they see its future?

I agree entirely with Marna Dixit from Ottawa who says that the Green Party has more ligitimacy to be on national debates. The Greens have a complete platform which includes all of Canada. The Green Party also extends beyond the boundries of Canada and is and international party.

It would be helpful for the voters to see how Jim Harris would fare in a debate.

It is wrong to suggest that the Bloc should not participate in the leaders' debate. The opinions of the people in Québec should not be ignored. Such a move would only further inflamme sovereignist passions.

Thank God for CBC the only news we watch or listen to... The one thing that is of concern to us is the lack of consistent funding for CBC, which we believe is the glue that holds this country together. No politician has mentioned this..

We always enjoy the Town Hall debates with average citizens participating under the superb guidance of Peter Mansbridge (how we missed you all in those long dry weeks)...

This is one question we would like to ask all of the poiticians. What guarantee can you give that will ensure adequate and dependable funding for the CBC?

I have been watching the news papers, TV Channels and election strategies of different party Leaders each day and getting so much confused by the leaders comments on various issues. We know the Leaders and their respective party backgrounds. I feel very sorry for Mr. Jack Leyton due to the fact that he started out the campaign in a very nesty and desperate way in order to survive even at the expense of party principles. Once he supported the Government and later on he led a non-confidence motion in cooperation with Mr. Harper. It looks like he is unknown and he doesn't have a clear policy, whatever he has just about the same as the Liberal with one exception that is increase tax and spend more. He could have done way better in the election if he waited for the final outcome of the Justice Gomery Report on ADScham.He pushed the Election which may have counter affect too.

The debates were better, but they remain hopelessly unfair to any PM. It's three attacking, one defending. If I were PM I'd offer to take on my opponents one at a time, but not altogether. Also, there is no logical reason to exclude the leader of a national party, the Greens, while including the leader of a provincial party, the Bloc. Why not open the debates to any national party -- that is, running enough candiates to form a government ?

Anthony Westell

Tony Burman replies: Although I too feel that “the debates were better”, I also agree the format was far from perfect. I was the CBC representative on the ‘consortium of networks’ that met with the parties to work out the new pattern. In the end, I think the format was an improvement, and the increased number of debates was a benefit. And those changes were no mean achievement. The negotiations involved five networks (CTV, Global, CBC, Radio-Canada and TVA) and the four parties currently represented in the House of Commons. Extracting an agreement from this crowd was not easy. (I suspect peace-in-the-Middle-East would be easier.) But we will take on board all suggestions for improvements, including Mr. Westell’s, when we regroup next time.

" An obligation is placed on all our media, but particularly Canada's public broadcaster, to provide campaign coverage that helps Canadians understand what matters to them."

As a Canadian I will make my own mind up, not what the CBC says. Just report the news.

Hi Mr. Burman: yes, I stopped listening to the old debates that were shouting matches - out of disgust. They are a waste of time and a disgrace to our political system. I listened to the recent English debate with delight. Informative, fast-paced, respectful.

I have found Reality Check very helpful and read it often. This is the kind of work all media should be doing.

Thanks, Heather Ferguson.

Mr. Burman, In your Article dated Jan. 16 2006, you state that "we have an obligation to provide campaign coverage that helps Canadians understand what matters to them". I couldn't agree more, trouble is, that coverage is generally from an eastern point of view, particularly Toronto and Montreal.  The National and many shows on Newsworld have a major tendancy to seek public opinion from the man on the street in and around Toronto. This may be the easy way to do it, or the most financially feasible but it does not reflect a truly Canadian perspective. The producers of these shows have to realize that it is a major turnoff when they take the easy way out or the cheapest method of creating a show. We here in western Canada see this on a daily basis and it is trully irritating. You also state that the C.B.C. "tried to challenge conventional stereotypes". However, in one major piece that I saw, conventional stereotypes were totally reinforced. On the National, Mark Kelly brought a died in the wool Hamilton Liberal to Alberta to "discover western Canada". Instead of talking to an average everyday Calgarian Mr. Kelly took his guest to a rural dude ranch to talk to a couple of cowboys. In Edmonton, they visited a country and western bar. Give me a break and quit paying lip service to the so called "national perspective". The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation news and public affairs division should be renamed "The Central Broadcasting Corporation" since it is "Canadian" in name only.      

Few election coverages have disturbed me as much as the CBC's coverage of this 2006 campaign. It is more than obvious that the CBC is government funded when nearly every story has an enormous imbalance of Liberal quotes and comments, and next to no response from the opposition. Even when the Liberals obviously distort the truth, very little effort is made to point this out.

I am tired of the Liberals trying to control the Canadian population with fear... and even more tired that the CBC plays right into it.

Who exactly has the hidden agenda?

Mark Mallett

Tony Burman replies: Do you really believe this? Do you actually think that CBC journalists would so pro-actively bias their coverage to favour the Liberals? There have always been complaints that CBC favours the party in power, including the years in the 1980s and 1990s when the Conservatives were in power. But in terms of this campaign, where there is no statistical evidence of it (see my earlier reply to Marie Jalsevac), what do you actually mean?

The one problem with not taking on polls, and getting out of the way, is that the public will seek out the polls from other media, such as the Globe and CTV, who do get in the way with great zeal.  There is a risk that people simply won't look at anything the CBC says, which is a crying shame.  In Britain and France, folks look to an array of news media across the ideological spectrum to achieve balanced views.  I'm afraid that the CBC is not helping to provide the scope  that voters want, nor are they counterbalancing the effects of the overzealous media outlets who are winning attention along the way.  Perhaps the sagging fortunes of the liberals (and NDP) are in part about the enthusiasm of the Globe and CTV for polls and things conservative, and the possibility that CBC forgot to turn on the radar?   I'd like to hear your feedback...

Tony Burman replies: I think you’re right that “there is a risk” but I don’t think there is evidence that this has happened. The issue of “polls’ is separate from whether or not Canadians are turning conservative. We see no signs that the audience levels to our programs are being affected negatively because we have been restrained about polling. In fact, our audiences have been very high and the response from them about our polling guidelines has been overwhelmingly positive. As for our credibility, the only independent survey done about the media’s performance in this campaign (done by an outside firm and focusing on the first half of the campaign) indicated that CBC News – compared with other TV networks – scored # 1 in its major categories: “best campaign coverage”; “most balanced and objective”; and “stories with most relevance”. So we appear to be doing OK, thank you.

Kudos to Mr. Burman and to the CBC as a whole.

I was having a conversation with my father the other night when some of the Conservative and Liberal ads flashed across the television.

We had pondered: "What if the candidates had to campaign like they did back in the old day, without the media hounding them constantly?"

Look at the other stations. Global National has three people specifically following each party, each with their own 'view' on how the party is doing at this point in the race. Sympatico shows a interactive graph on how certain parties were doing during certain times when they did surveys.

I believe we got all bogged down in the media's opinion of our politics that we might have lost our own opinion. Our opinion is based on how someone felt about a certain comment or a certain ad.

The media definitely needs to scale back during these times. I know they are working for the Canadian people, however when they start offering their opinions on certain issues, you start to wonder.....isn't news supposed to be unbias?

I love how the CBC has the general public's forum through the riding talk. You guys have definitely made the election one of the best for me, just by seeing how my fellow canadian thinks about the situation in my area and as a whole. So interactive and very interesting to watch and read.

Keep it up!

I always gave credit to CBC for not showing bias on issues of politics but during this election campaign I have noted that all news begins with Harper and in my mind should always begin with the standing or ruling Prime Minister and his issues first.  you constantly show case Harper in all your coverage on tv and radio.  Paul Martin is our PM whether you like it or not, I happen to like it and feel safe living in our country. Mr. Harper is a frightening alternate.

thankyou
Elizabeth Fast

Over the past several weeks, I have grown tired of hearing the same political rhetoric from the politicians and their stratagists, therefore, I have appreciated the political journalists analysis and observations.

It seems the politicians are constantly telling us what the other party will do and how bad that is. The journalists cut through that and get to the heart of the matter and I appreciate their comments. Keep up the good work.

Tony Burman
Editor in Chief
CBC News

The Division between what is truth, news, and entertainment are must change if we are to surpass the achievements of any other North American country to date, both socially, and governmentally. Canada as a country learns well from its neighbors, borrowing and adopting ideas, then working them like knives against a sharpener, honing the edges, enlightening both the facilitator and the wielder. The wielder, being a person(s) like myself, who reads/watches the news, and utilizes it's information Trusting in what our visual and audio personal guides tell us, we hinge all our daily ethical choices based on what we see as "right" or "just", which are ideas again based fundamentally on a "good vs. evil" scale. This thinking couldn˙t be more superficial, not because it is shallow or lacking in intellect, but more so a reaction out of fear of the unknown element that may be hidden beneath the surface of a simple cultural happening. Modern Canada is an ever-changing landscape, growing quickly with a louder more trusted international voice, and a global reputation for being well mannered, educated, and caring people. I believe that other Canadian minds can see this happening as well and now have an expectation in the news to deliver something truthful and entertaining.

Thanks for stepping up to the plate. With shows such as Rough - Cuts, CBC radio 3, and The Hour with George, have shown us that you do care about what the viewer/listener thinks and feels of you [the CBC], the events that shape their lives, and your commitment to the honesty of the particulars behind them.

Waylon McCann
New Westminister, British Columbia, Canada
January 17, 2006

[P.S. I miss 'the McBane Minute' on The Hour [season 1], can we have it back as a semi regular thing?]

-just to reinforce the sense that structuring the 'debates' so that positions and arguments could be stated and rebutted and heard shows itself as far superior to the 'shouting matches' format of other times- Thank you! -no doubt there can be improvements, perhaps including either the answering or invalidating of questions and challenges  

Very good article. Reporters are human and do make errors and many wonder if they have hidden agendae.  I saw one of the editors on TV explaining why there paper, Globe and Mail, are supporting the Conservatives.  He stated they thought Mr. Harper had matured from the last election and this smacked of elitism and the voter has to be told this.  Good luck

As a taxpayer who pays your salaries and expenses your reporting of many government policies is or should not be allowed as you have a vested interest, - - - - - your own.

If most taxpayers had their say your reporting would only be on cultural events and let the free market look after the balance of the programming that they want and will pay for, - - - -  you should never be allowed to compete using taxpayers money, - - - -  this is suposed to be democracy

Next time around when planning the debates, which may be in 18 months or so, please use your influence to include the Green Party and exclude the Bloc.  In my mind, the Green Party has a much greater claim to be part of the debates, with candidates in every riding and a national platform, than does the Bloc, with only narrow partisan provincial interests. I think that giving Duceppe this stage to put forth his views helps give the Bloc a legitimacy that it should't have and is detrimental to the national interest of Canada.  

Mr. Burman,

The bafflement I have is how any media organization, like a national newspaper, for example, can openly endorse a particular party and still declare itself neutral or non-partisan. This is simply impossible!  I know many media outlets are 'accused' of being biased and partisan, but to openly declare support is to confirm that accusation.  Why would a respected newspaper do that?  To me it means that I know longer trust what they write; no longer find guidance in their particular analysis; no longer feel they can inform me in an objective way.  In essence, I find myself orphaned from what should be in-depth analysis and thoughtful discussion.  When an endorsement is made, I feel cheated and betrayed.

If a newsmaper has made a decision to support a particular party, then, naturally, it has become, inadvertanly or intentionlly, the mouthpiece of that particular party.  What a label to be tagged with!  It is, after all, only an opinion.  And opinions change!  I think of Pope from his "Essay on Criticism" when he mused,

"... Some praise at morning what they blame at night,
But always think the last opinion right."

Media editors, especially, should be promoting non-partisan reporting. Somewhere in the schools of journalism, there must be a code specifying this approach.  Why do they so blatantly ignore it? Sometimes I feel they don't trust the good judgemnet of their respective readers and feel they should instruct them as to how they should vote.  Such an infringement on one's right to decide.

CBC's coverage of the election is a big improvement. Not only does it make it easier for people to learn about the candidates platforms but I believe that it is having a positive affect on the apathy that has culminated over the years (especially things like "votebyissue"). Keep up the good work!

Bravo Sir!  You are 100% correct.  You have succeeded in giving us a "real" debate. Now, is it possible that you could influence the kind of advertising political parties put forward during an election campaign?  I would like to see some "rule" that forbids a party from mentioning the other parties in any way.  The party ads should focus on only what their policy plans will be.  They could speak of one important policy within each ad.  Canadians are sick of the name calling, and pathetic attacks that are presently a part of politics.  We want to get rid of such behaviour in the legislature and during election campaigns.  That would certainly represent the Canada I want to be a part of in the future.  Does the media have the ability to bring about such a "revolution" in politics?

Thank you!  It's been so long since I've seen an honest column regarding the media's role in "hyping" events, particularly election campaigns.  Canadians need thoughtful debate and unbiased reporting in order to make informed decisions about their future political leaders.

Kudos to you and the CBC for taking your role as information provider seriously.

I applaud your initiative but I feel that the CBC has fallen short on its objective. First, I believe that our elected officals in the last parliament lied to the electorate completely. Each party leader stated that each would make that parliament work effectively through greater cooperation. Instead, all that we heard each and every day was about the sponsorship scandal. Their personal agenda took precedence over the needs of individual Canadians. No one, not even the CBC stopped to analyze this situation properly. Firstly, Prime Minister Chretien was severely criticized for his failure to promote the federal agenda. His reaction was to create a separate vehicle through the sponsorship campaign reporting directly to the PMO to fulfill this obligation. With the enemy who are dedicated to the breakup of Canada sitting in parliament, the normal process needed to be pypassed. While circumventing the normal safeguards, he failed to place a separate set of safeguards for the PMO to control these expenditures.

The auditor general's report exceeded the normal reporting role with its commentary. This is not the role of the auditor general to add this commentary but to report factual information objectively. The amount that was addressed occured over a ten year period and amounts to less than 1% of the annual budget of the PWGSC.

Prime Minister Chretien was correct to place these programs in Liberal friendly firms. Why, because they were people with whom, he placed a trust not for monetary rewards, but to advance the Canadian dream. These are the people who violated the trust of the government and the Canadian people. With respect to these firms contributing to the Liberal Party, has anyone examined their historic support over ten years prior to the sponsorship scandal to establish the pattern of contribution.

Hi: I am afraid this election will not get voted on by the people who are knowledgeable about politics - those with a bent to the looks or sound of the candidate is more important to them.  Hence we seem to get the worst of both worlds.

Mr Burman

The CBC reporting on this Election has been the best I can ever remember - congratulations.

Your guidelines, were and are well thought out and sound.

My only suggestion would be to have more citizen involvement - E Democracy if you will. We are NOT being inundated by politicians - NOT been deluged with  the latest polls - NOT been talked down to by "hired talking heads " but ARE been given "the way it is" daily -impartially by your excellent reporters.

As I mentioned - as a Canadian Citizen - can you find out some way so I know what the fellow Canadian Citizen feels /is thinking/has issues in Quebec/the West/the Maritimes?

This is your challenge - and for the next election :>)

This one - super job
Bravo Zulu

Gord Jenkins
Ottawa CANADA

Good morning: And I enjoy your comment there that polls suck the oxgen out of the debate process and the sad thing about polls is that folks follow trends to be on the winners side. If there is a minority gov't after the 23rd, pity the poor electorate of Canada as they have already lost faith in the judicial system and I can see that the political process is in danger of folks loosing faith in it also. I think that a very severe penalty should be imposed on folks who do not exercise their franchise as citizens, then the politicians will get a very good message on what will be tolerated by the voters on their election platforms they present to them. Also I think term limits should be analyzed to see if it would be of benefit to Canada .

I mistrust polls and I appreciate this column. I mistrust them because

1- many people phoned refused to take part in a poll so the results are not completely accurate or random

2- people change their mind over the course of a campaign once they hear platforms, hear gaffes, and see debates

3- polls make people change their minds. Nobody likes their vote to be just assumed and we are rebels out here.

4- many people vote out of pity for those expected to lose.  Pollsters forget that this pity vote may actually turn the tide, even against the intent maybe of the one who voted.

5.-in casual conversations I hear many people are just depressed that all candidates are flawed and they are wishing there was a none-of-the-above vote. I expect other parties to do surprisingly well. eg. Green and I am not a Green supporter.

I agree that polling really distorts the critical issues and purposes of an election campaign. The endless  sports analogies used by many journalists underscore this trivialization of the critical exercise we as a nation are going through. I have a topic to propose that is never (to my memory) discussed with voters. I would like to see journalists challenge what I call the "one issue" voter. I find it shocking that so many voters decide who to support based on one teeny tiny (often obscure in the bigger picture of policy and values) issue. I would like the  media to challenge people voting for a party on issues such as revisiting same sex marriage, or belief that one party will deliver promised jobs to a specific region, or tax cuts or any other tiny slice of a platform as the primary and sole source of a voting decision. I think it's important for people who do this to be prodded to look at overall big picture ideas.

Thanks.
Sheina Lerman

I have, to my admitted surprise, generally been positively impressed by the CBC election coverage.   My impression is that reporters are asking harder policy questions of all candidates, more like some of the BBC Radio 4 interviews I used to enjoy when my wife and lived for a time in the UK.  It is good to push the candidates a bit, making it harder for them to evade real questions.  This seems to have been happening more consistently.  I hope this trend continues.  (For those unfamiliar with BBC Radio 4 interview style, I would suggest listening to their national morning show when they interview politicians.  I came to appreciate the refusal of the interviewers to let their subjects off the hook, as it were.)

I also appreciate the polling not taking centre stage all the time, eclipsing the policy issues.  Thank you.

And the debates, especially the second set, were really helpful for me as a voter.  Thank you again.  Keep up the good work!

Barrett

On election night and afterwards, I hope that CBC News will prominently note and discuss the number and percentage of eligible voters who cast a ballot.  When we vote, we vote not only for a party but for democracy.  Declining voter participation rates are lamentable.  Can the CBC (or other media) do anything to explain in detail the growing phenomenon of voter apathy and to encourage Canadians to exercise the most fundamental democratic right?

CBC journalists should be less afraid to remain neutral and more to let their interlocutors (especially politicians) get away with nonsense.

The root of the problem is the widespread belief that to be neutral means to let everyone have their say and quote without criticism any significant party to a debate. This concern leads to reports that lend credibility to absurdities, flawed arguments, and outright lies simply by echoing them. Journalists thus become spokespersons for propagandists.

Journalists should not be concerned with neutrality insofar as they actually seek and disclose facts of interest to their audiences. For them to have any other aim with regard to news content is for them to work in the service of those they talk about, not their audiences. Ultimately, this undermines democracy by insuring the incapacity of ordinary people to cast their votes intelligently. The U.S.A. might be considered as an example of advanced-stage journalistic critico-phobia with attendant political deficits.

CBC journalists generally distinguish themselves by their critical attitude compared to the average journalist, but there is clearly room for improvement. There are countries, such as Spain, where state-sponsored journalism is noticeably more critical and informative.

Of course, there is more than one reason why contemporary media are not informative. One is that they aim to please a large audience whose average interest for the true complexity of things greatly constraints the content that will bring in advertising revenue. However, the role of journalists is as much to raise public interest in political matters as to respond to it. Furthermore, there are at any time numbers of attention-grabbing facts that remain undisclosed. More debates, more confrontation, more attempts at figuring out the big picture and holding politicians accountable would generate more interest in the public.  

CBC.ca is my homepage. Your Canada Votes 2006 website is a great resource especially sections 'Leaders, Parties & Issues' and 'Reality Check'. CBC is also the first I turn to for your most unbiased news, especially compared to all other Canadian and American news channels - I appreciate your unwavering approach to fair coverage of national or international news. I like how CBC has maintained focus on the 2006 election policy issues and has not resorted to the mud slinging public swaying methods of the other news broadcasters. I thought the debate coverage was excellent and for the first time my wife assumed an interest in politics and watched the debate with me this year. Congratulations on a job well done - your staff is amazing - keep up the impeccable work! CBC, you make me proud to be Canadian!

PS: I'm also a huge HNIC fan going back to PeterPuck days.

Thanks for this personal insight. I hope you will continue in your position after this election is over... and suspect you will... provide that another Liberal sham is not elected. I am a septuagenarian and am so sick of the greed and hypocracy that has pervaded and prevailed in our Parliament, for too many years, that my only hope now is that Stephen Harper and his candidates will bring back the needed common sense, dignity,honesty and integrity to Canadians.

Hi

By excluding the Green party from the debates for a second year in a row, the CBC and the other channels are working with the 4 main political parties to limit the exposure of the Green party. The result of this will be to limit the votes cast for the Green party.

You are not getting out of the way as you claim, by setting the participants and format of the debate you are restricting the choices.

I cannot trust the CBC.

Sharad Bhargava

As someone who has looked to the CBC for a range of news and opinions I could not find in the corporate media I must say I have been disappointed over the past couple of years. You were accused by conservatives, and by that same corporate media, as having a 'leftist or liberal' bias. This was nonsense, as what I saw was the CBC providing a range of views that included people from Avi Lewis and Judy Rebick to David Frum and Don Cherry. I could just as often be angry as amazed at what I had seen or heard. But I believe those attacks have had their desired effect and the CBC has narrowed that range and even shifted that range to be more in line with Canwest and company.

This is true especially in the present election campaign. You quote that the news and truth have different functions but I think you are hiding behind that concept to evade the real responsibility of journalists. Journalists have access to information, to newsmakers and to resourses that I don't have. So they do have a responsibility to dig out the truth , to ask the hard questions to give me the information, I need , as a citizen to make my democratic decisions. What I see right now for example is Harper and the various Conservative candidates getting a free ride.Not going to all candidates meetings so you won't get asked embarrassing questions about your views on abortion or on Iraq, when you have a number of candidates of one party doing that , that sounds newsworthy. Little about that but plenty how Harper now wears turtlnecks and smiles alot. I won't even go on about the imbalance of postponing the Tommy Douglas bio but at the same time going ahead with 'Medicare-Smedicare'.

There is a dwindling number of sources of the truth out there in this so called information age. I know everyone has their own truth but what I expect from my public network is to present those many truths, not just the business elites truth or the 'accepted' truth. That's all.

Shame on all the journalists. They have made too big a deal about the misspent money in Quebec by the Liberals. Yes, the Liberals threw money at Quebec to fight separatism. Even if the money did not always end up in the right hands, Quebec is still a Canadian province today. People were not jailed or tortured as in other countries. Yes, the Liberals have made mistakes but what about the scandals under Brian Mulroney and Mike Harris. Brian Mulroney shoved free trade and the GST down our throats. Free trade is responsible for destroying our environment,small communities and family farms.Free trade encourages people to consume natural resources in a unsustainable manner. The Americans would like to buy our raw wood and process it south of the border. That is what the softwood tariff is all about. They would like to privatize our public-owned forests and pipe our water. They want our natural resources-cheap. Mike Harris did his best to shut down the Ministry of Environment and privatize as much as possible. Mike Harris should have gone to jail as a result of Walkerton. That was a scandal! Too much has been made of the Liberal scandal and not enough attention has been paid to Harper's hidden agenda and how our country would change under the conservatives. AS an environmentalist, I am very worried about a Conservative government. The environment took a back seat with the Mulroney and Harris Governments. The media has been swaying the public by not giving the Conservatives an equal amount of negative attention. The media is biased in what it chooses to report.

Sincerely,
Darlene Salter

Mr. Burman:

I am deeply appreciative of the CBC's efforts to provide thoughtful and complete coverage of the multitude of issues and concerns during this campaign.

Perhaps like no other, the 2006 election has presented challenges frought with obvious (and sometimes less obvious) difficulties for the media:  what will the weather be like tomorrow? will the bus start?  whose campaign promises will ignite the public's interest?  when will the candidates cost out their platform promises?

As always, CBC has gathered wise voices to provide listeners and viewers with crisp analysis, thoughtful insights, and delightful wit.  (CBC Radio 1's election satire has warmed many a cold winter morning in my household, believe me!)

Thank you for continuing to be the solid public voice of this country.  I shudder to think of how different election coverage would be in an environment filled with Fox and CNN and their fellow travellers.

Kathleen Wagner

Personally i am glad to see less focus on the polls and more on the real issues.  I am also glad to see the journalism profession take a more "reporting" role than a "opinionated" role - I see your role as one to provide the information that Canadians need to make their decisions, not one where the news is sensationalized to get attention.  You are the National News source so we expect more from you!

Ron

I feel so sad that polls and the magic of mathematics has taken the mystery of the victory away from the day after polling day. It's like the moment I found out there was no Santa Claus. To me it appears to be like a self fulfilling prophesy. Every morning is like the day after voting . When a party starts to edge up in the polls , a band wagon effect occurs.  Not so loyal volunteers become discouraged and toss their weather beaten signs in the dumpster as they drag their weary spirits to the other party across the street,hoping to join the euphoria of a winning team. I'm glad you have relegated the polls to a weekly summary. At least it gives me an ostrich-in-the-sand reprieve from my Santa Claus syndrome.( I'm 61 by the way). Keep up the excellent coverage. Pat

I think the CBC has done a good job of reporting with a fair coverage. I also appreciated the above article. Why can't we have the Sunday morning Michael Enright programme rebroadcast on a weekday. I go to worship on Sunday morning and I think many of his fans do too but I want very much to hear the Sunday morning programme. Also the other day on my way to work I heard The Current interviewing Stephen Harper's sidekick about same sex marriage and once again I heard a comment 'it's the religious and it's the old that are against same sex marriage.' I am a person of faith and it is my faith that has led me to the conviction that same sex marriage is just and the Canadian thing to allow. I am also 68 years old.

I read your column January 16 tonight with some interest. I agreed with much of what you said.

I was particularly impressed with the change in format of the televised leaders' debates.

However, I would suggest an additional improvement. To determine which party leaders are eligible for the debate, I believe you should allow only truly national parties to participate. Perhaps a minimum criteria of 5 % or more of the popular vote nationally and candidates in at least 154 ridings.

Keep up the great work!

I think the CBC should be shut down. It is biased towards the left. The majority of people in this country are middle of the road. CBC does not reflect the majority of Canadians views. The least that should happen is keep the entertainment and sports coverage, but get the CBC out of the political arena.

Dear Tony,

I like how you show the left and right points of view on political discussions.  Please continue to do so.  I think increasingly, media sources are being labelled as only right wing or left wing and people are distrustful of a biased source.  I think if CBC continues to emphasize that it takes all spectrums of political thinking - it will appeal to more people.  I would really like to hear a program on the Constitution and why Quebecers feel left out.  Especially out here on the west coast a lot of people are completely unaware of the issues behind the sovereignty debate.

Regarding the debate formats, I found them incredibly more informative than those in the past and feel strongly that they were effective in communicating the respective parties platforms. The moderator in the second english debate was especially good. I however, cannot say that the leaders were effective in informing the public what a government under their leadership would look like. I often found the questions addressing something the parties had said in the past or promised rather than general policy questions that would provide a broader understanding of what their government would look like.

I've watched the debates (the English ones anyway) and followed the election coverage and the one thing that I continue to be disappointed with is the lack of inspirational leadership in all candidates.  Although I was to young to remember the early days of the Trudeau era, looking back at the coverage and reading his biography the one thing that can be said is that Pierre Trudeau had flare and a true passion for this country that seemed to go beyond just a desire for obtaining power and position.  He was truly inspiring in his vision for this country.

Stephen Harper, Paul Martin and Jack Layton just don't seem to have these qualities or, at the very least, have an ability to convey them.  I'm afraid that until we are presented with a candidate that goes beyond promises that likely won't be filled, discussions that go beyond just throwing dollar figures around, fear mongering and mud-slinging it's not really going to matter how the media presents the story.  Not one of these things are going to inspire Canadians.

I think at this point, after almost 20 years of uninspiring leadership that the country is starved for it.  I wonder if Paul Martin could have been that leader if he hadn't had that liberal sponsorship albatross around his neck?

Dear Mr. Burman:

Nothing "inspiring" here, other than to congratulate you at the CBC for doing your best in this modern age to be what once were called [true] jounalists, namely those who reported the facts. This used to be done without spin, as I am told.

I really appreciated the debate format, so thanks. Of course the five million number is likely low, unless you were tracking hits on the website too.

Keep up the good work.

My greatest fear of Conservatives forming a new government is:

1.   Canada becoming a loose federation of powerful provincial governments;

2.   Canada becoming a vasal to American fundamentalist ideas and policies, thereby losing its present international position as a "brothers' keeper".

I agree that the focus on policy coverage instead of horse race coverage was needed, and have been welcomed by me.

I do have one 'horse race' type question I would really like explored, and that is,

What proportion of voters who are voting Tory now are doing so because of 'time for a change' or because of the 'policies' of the Tories?

Here in BC in 2001 there was a consensus for change as well, however as the BCTF's bumper sticker said "Nobody voted for that."

Kim Campbell statement about policy during elections has some truth to it. People often do not take the time to look carefully at policy during an election.

I'd like to know the level of support for Tory policies, vs 'time for a change' so that if elected, Tories might take a more cautious approach to implementing policy.

Although this would require polling, I think the questions would very much focus upon policy and be the kind of thing that CBC could contribute to the debate.

Kudos to CBC for not supporting the glitz of election polls. They do have an error margin which seems to be generally ignored.  Sadly these polls influence people's final vote and the issues are certainly overlooked.

Thanks again.

hi Tony, i wish every media pundits, pollsters and media owner have the guts to read your editorial, we will be educated more on the issues affecting the common person than obsessions with polling bites.the good thing about canadians are: high intellgent voter, safe voter and not persuaded by polls.myself as an example. i wiil be voting on the issues and i wiil be reading you every time and bravo to the CBC stand in general. cheers Tony.

I don't think CBC has still got the horse race our of it's system.  The election coverage has been extensive, but I feel that your team continues to make the call as to who "won" and "lost" the debates before you ask Canadians.  For instance, I have been known to vote for the PC party in the past, but I would never state that our Conservative leader won any of the debates - he was terrible - the snear at the end of each answer was unbearable.  According to the CBC news team, he clearly won - how is that possible?  Don't ask your subject matter experts - ask US.

My main "beef" with the coverage of the campaign provided by CBC is that it is too gimmicky. For instance,we do not need the so-called INSIDER's comments, they are bland and uninteresting. Other segments have also been given grandiose titles,uselessly in my opinion. Keep it crisp and informative. Incidentally, CBC is my main source of information, so I'm counting on you people, don't let me down!

What I really want from politicians and party leaders, is that their commitment to the well-being of this nation and its people, is greater and more urgent than their desire for power.    I am looking for the man or woman who understands that true power is not a zero sum game but an individual investment in the collective bank of social justice.  When the majority of Canadians begin to understand their responsibility in creating a just society, they will begin to understand how power works and they will not be so easily side-tracked by images and sound-bites from the corporate media.  When Canadians realize that what they want for their family must also be available for humanity, they will not be so easily manipulated by interests that pretend to represent the best interests for Canadians.

Yes, I think the 2005-06 debates were an improvement over 2004. However, they can be still further strengthened.

There was an-all candidates meeting held here in Victoria, chaired by a UVic political scientist, Warren Magnussen. He is known for his sharp mind, fairness, and ability to ask fearless, cutting questions. This he did of all candidates. The questions were such that the candidates found it very dificult to avoid the thrust of the question. If we could accomplish that in the national televised debates, we would accomplish something!

I've read all the comments other readers/viewers/listeners have posted here and join them in the generally positive feedback you are getting.  Thank goodness for the CBC.

Every other channel on TV/radio, most newspapers, and nearly every website around the world seems to have a great deal of American non-news. I have no objection to being informed about global 'hard' news - the more factual the better. Hope does spring eternal, however, and my hope would be that we Canadians would actually see more of ourselves (and less of our neighbours to the south) reflected in CBC programming, so I am happy with any change in that direction.

Coming from the West Coast of Canada I periodically feel that we are left out altogether (the "west" does go a little beyond Winnipeg, you know), but there are many parts of Canada that feel that way.  Just do your best to give us the facts and cut down on 'personality', and most of us will be happy.

I think the 2005 debates were a distinct improvement in 2004. Despite the total lack of passion from any of the four leaders, except for a smal meausure close to the end from Paul Martin. If only it were possible to use all the good and constructive ideas from each leader and create a truly "national" Government. Perhaps proportional representation will help achieve this.

Throughout the campaign two topics of discusion have been sadly missing: the first has been any meaningful discussion or debate on foreign policy, a realy important subject given today's global economy, and the second, the question of "leadership". There comes a time when the "issues" need to be put aside in order to focus on leadership, and who is best suited to representing Canada on the World stage.

Michael Butcher

I am very pleased that CBC has abandoned focusing on "the horse race". I have always believed that the media's place is to encourage and comment on public opinion, not lead or determine it. I'm disheartened when I think that people will vote based on who's leading in the polls rather than making an educated choice based on which party most closely reflects their values. And we should all keep in mind that Father Christmas is a myth and not be persuaded to vote based on the spending promises made during an election campaign.

On a slightly different note, I still don't understand why the "one issue" Green party is denied representation during the debates while the very obviously "one issue" Bloc party is included. How ˙ ethically and morally ˙ can Mr. Duceppe consider running for national leadership when he states at every opportunity that Quebec wants to leave the Dominion of Canada?

CBC is my news service of choice.   The commentators.. the  investigators. all very well done. I do though dislike moderators who do not moderate. When 3-4 party reps are on a set.. I think the moderator is obliged to demand a tone that allows the listener to hear from all participants.

My specific concern is the morning political show of recent times with Susan Murray,  the NDP and the conservative.. lady... It is important that the presenters state truth and speak to the listener.. not at each other.

I don't think there is any place for misbehaviour in the CBC panel presentations. The TV is where a lot of people learn language and etiquette.  CBC has to continue to live up to that mandate.

Reality Check. For me, this has been the absolute best of media coverage of the election -- and the friends I have turned on to it agree.

Insightful, detailed, devoid of hyperbole, not lost in the spin of political handlers -- a relief when one feels lost in the messaging out there.

And I ask -- isn't this what the media is supposed to be doing all the time?

Surely there is a place for this approach to journalism long past the election.