Canadian Entertainment, Music and Catch All II
 

This is a continuation of the previous thread. Please proceed.

Link to the previous archived thread:

https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=95736

I find we tend to remember commercials and program's intros and extros because they are repeated.

This program's intro has always rung in my head and I wonder if anyone remembers it. The Australian kid show The Lost Islands had a lengthy intro that basically told the whole story of the show. It had a run on Canadian TV in the mid/late 70s?

• Video Link

Kevin McCorry has managed to log something I think is amazing and invaluable to an amateur TV historian like me. He has created 15 pages of TV schedules (1971-87) (for the Maritimes) which include CBC, CTV and other Canadian stations plus the US networks when cable came online. Most of the Canadian stations and US primetime should apply across the country so it shouldn't be too exclusive to those outside the Maritimes.

Boy, some of these shows bring back memories.

Television Listings For Canada's Eastern Maritime Provinces: 1971 to 1972

I don't see where he links to the TV schedule pages but if you use the link above and change the url from lifestorytvlist1.html to lifestorytvlist2.html and lifestorytvlist3.html up to lifestorytvlist15.html, you get the idea.

This page has been up for a long time, but I didn't realize it was 15 pages worth. Now I have to save them before they're gone.

Found a very cool clip of an early US made Friendly Giant. Not many people know that along with Fred Rogers and Ernie Coombs (via Rogers) CBC's head of youth development Fred Rainsberry recruited Bob Homme from Wisconsin

The show moved to Toronto where original puppeteer Ken Ohst was replaced by Rod Coneybeare

What a beautiful, quiet little show, a shame there is nothing like it today.

• Video Link

Back in those days schedules varied a lot across the CBC and CTV networks. CBC owned stations in the largest cities, but they also had many private affiliates, many of which did not clear the full network schedule and often had additional local or syndicated programs. In London, CFPL was a CBC affiliate up until 1988, but it aired a much different schedule than the CBC-owned station in Toronto. As an example, Midday was aired at 2pm in London instead of at noon as was done on the network schedule, as CFPL did its own local news and agricultural report during the noon hour. CFPL aired American game shows in the afternoon such as The Price is Right that were not provided by the CBC network.

CTV did not own any of its stations back then, so programming sometimes varied widely. As late as the mid-90s, the affiliates in Kitchener and Toronto (CKCO and CFTO, respectively) had radically different schedules. And in BC, BCTV aired weekday Canucks games and bumped CTV network programs to CHEK, which itself was also a CTV affiliate but didn’t always air network shows at the same time as BCTV.

I had a short stint in traffic back in the day, as well as continuity and sales, production and news, so I saw it all at one time or another.

There would be programs that would air in the mornings and in the afternoons in some markets. Quad tapes would be bicycled across the country (I did that too)

One thing that fascinates me now was between the two main networks (pre cable) they seemed to manage to be able to air almost every major American program. Not saying there aren't any, but I can't remember thinking boy I wish I could see that show.

I do recall in the mid 70s going to friend's houses that had cable and seeing shows that CBC and CTV didn't carry (particularly US game shows), Family Feud comes to mind. But that wasn't a real game breaker.

CHSJ in Saint John NB was an affiliate that often deviated from the CBC sked. NB didn't have a CBC O&O until 1994.

Back to the schedules, a real work of love by that guy and very useful, I downloaded them this aft.

I love when you get a good Google preview. CTV The Network That Means Business by Michael Nolan gives a good look into the formation of CTV, something that is not so well documented.

*sigh*

Alarmforce is listed on the TSX.

Rusty the old clucker in a bag.
• Video Link

Doesn't Rusty sound like the lead singer of Canned Heat?
• Video Link

or maybe the guy (Valair) with the weird voice in this video?
• Video Link

Quick note that if you've done AncestryDNA, they've updated their results again (obviously, your DNA doesn't change, but as more people participate, they're able to identify more specific geography for your ancestry, and moreso, the path your ancestors took to where you are now).

They've ALMOST zeroed in on my genes coming from Waterford, like almost every Newfoundlander whose ancestors came from Ireland.

https://i.postimg.cc/zGFFdRjS/Screen...-27-172501.png

For example, whoever my ancestors were in 1750, a lot of people also descended from them came here, and a lot stayed behind. :haha:

https://i.postimg.cc/13bsjf3X/Screen...-27-172842.png

One of the classic Internet vids. Too bad it's fake. For me it always calls to mind the below hilarious vid from a real Danish game show.
"Have I really been smelling a stinking ass?! (Retch) Ugh, and it was hairy!"

• Video Link

^you found a video of bnk nosing Trump's rectum

^Except bnk enjoys getting his nose into Dump's dumps. The poo of one's idol smells like roses.

Friends star Matthew Perry passed away this evening, apparently drowning, perhaps also as a result of another medical issue.

Nothing that I can find so far at CBC (no surprise). Not Canadian but another TV personality Richard Moll (Night Court) has died as well

You've mentioned elsewhere that you worked in news in the past, so I assume you already know that one of the primary responsibilities of a news organization is verifiability. When the news first broke, the report came from TMZ - hardly a reliable source:

To quote HBO's The Newsroom, from the episode that covered the shooting of US politician Gabby Giffords:

CBC posted their initial story at 7:41 PM.

I had thought they might wait to verify but every other outlet including CTV and CNN posted the story hours before CBC. I wouldn't have mentioned it otherwise.

Also for that kind of story TMZ might be a better source. I don't think we need to detail all of MSM's false reporting. When The View (and their in show corrections) is part of ABC News then I know it's lost the plot.

Is that Pacific time? The story, I am seeing from the AP (on the CBC website) is 10:41 Eastern. The story is also using the LA Times and TMZ as sources

To verify Sainte-Marie's early Mi'kmaq identity claims, her younger sister took a DNA test that showed she had "almost no" Native American ancestry and she says she is genetically related to Sainte-Marie's son, which would not be possible if Buffy was adopted as she claimed

Nobody drowns in a hot tub (except perhaps a toddler or infant).

There has to be an underlying cause.

It might have been a medical issue such as a cardiac arrhythmia, heart attack or stroke.

Or, Perry could have relapsed in his drug abuse problems, and was stuporous to the point of being defenceless.

Either way, this is all very sad.

His last instagram post shows him in a spa. Now this was several days ago so who knows if it was the same one he died in. But, when you say "hot tub", I think of the thing I have in my back yard where it's comfortable for me and my wife to get in. The jacuzzi he was in was larger than the pool at my last house and only his head was above water. When I posted last night, it was only a few minutes after TMZ came out with the story and I did qualify my comments with perhaps a medical issue caused the drowning as it was way too early to actually know.

Thanks for clarifying. This changes things quite a lot. It could very well have been an accidental drowning then.

RIP.

It was high up on the CBC list of stories early this morning.

Nothing political about it, so I am not sure why you are stating "no surprise".

They're saying "no surprise" because many conservative leaning people write off the CBC as being bad because they don't agree with all of its reporting or coverage choices. And once you write something off as bad, you'll assume it's bad overall meaning that it's faulty in other areas too. That's because they assume the disagreements they have with it can't be mere differences in opinion or philosophies, or heaven forbid, that they might be wrong themselves. No, the disagreement must be due to other party being crazy and/or incompetent because if they weren't, they'd have programming that they consider "correct" ie indulging conservative narratives. :P

I would say that's fairly close to the truth except for the part about indulging conservative narratives.. Why you often see conservative leaning people perturbed by coverage is because of what they see as a lack of fairness. CBC has always had a "liberal" leaning but it was tolerable because the coverage seemed fair. The same applies to left leaning people who use Fox News as a pejorative and roll their eyes. The news division has some very good journalists and the commentators (like other outlets) are just that. You have to distinguish between the two.

There are far more activists than journalists at Mother Corps. Personally, I have brought attention to stories I've seen as fair, frankly because I am surprised they are there. I thought it was very courageous (a much overused word these days) for one of their radio hosts to really grill her own boss (the President of the CBC). I think the BSM story took some courage because it seems to both fight and coddle CBC's ultra native and alphabet agenda but my real interest in the story is the mystery and personal element not the political. I can find enough of that here.

I realize what you meant, but when conservatives say "lack of fairness" what it actually tends to amount to is someone not indulging conservative narratives. They believe their perspective is correct and therefore it's unfair for someone to say otherwise even if their perspective is verifiably incorrect. They expect an outlet to "both sides" an issue when the actual facts of the issue clearly support a conclusion they don't like. Or increasingly, to not even "both sides" it and just give them the angle they want.

And it's definitely not like when people call out Fox News for partisanship or factual inaccuracies because the actual facts matter. The issue isn't whether two groups each claim a certain news outlet has factual inaccuracies. It's whether or not the outlets in question actually have factual inaccuracies. And Fox News is notorious for blurring the lines between their news reporting and their commentary. Not that everything the news personnel say is incorrect. Just that there are enough inaccuracies to make it unreliable.

That's been known for a good decade now after a well-known study was conducted of various news viewers in the US. It's asked them a series of questions on current events while controlling for other variables such as party affiliation and the use of other news sources. While the results varied, Fox News viewers were uniquely poorly informed to the point that they were less knowledgeable than people who watch no news at all. And notably, also less knowledgeable than viewers of any of the other outlets including ones accused of being liberal. While MSNBC also didn't do well (though better than Fox) NPR did the best despite it regularly being maligned as having a left-leaning bias.

So no, the "same thing" most certainly does not apply.

One thing Conservatives often ask themselves is "what if" or put the shoe on the other foot. What if Poilievre wore the blackface would the coverage be the same? What if Poilievre made claims about being a feminist supporter and have four? women leave his caucus would he get the same treatment or much worse? These are the questions many Conservatives ask when it comes to fairness.

As I said before I don't need to get into a game of gotchas here because I am pretty sure my side is gonna be happy next election. I'm not totally against Liberals (I used to be one) I'm just against this particular group. But anything could happen, I thought Trump was down and dusted and now he is leading the polls but I don't see that happening to JT

Wait, so it's all just speculation about hypotheticals rather than a critique of the actual coverage?

But yes, I can imagine what would happen if the shoe were reversed in many cases. Like if Pierre had intentionally appoint an equal number of male and female MPs to cabinet and 4 women left. Conservatives would have claimed it was just what happens when you try to appease the woke left by appointing people who aren't qualified. We know this because many did claim that the government appointed people who weren't qualified, assuming that's an inevitable result of equal representation. And if Pierre was found to have worn black face they would have whole heartedly defended him by pointing out it was a long time ago and it wasn't an important issue.

And as a Black person I was frustrated by the dialogue surrounding the blackface incident with people claiming Trudeau was given a special pass because of favouritism or some such. In reality, people like me didn't think it was that important because Trudeau was otherwise fairly strong on social issues so there was no indication it was due to actual racism rather than just poor judgement. But for someone with a different track record, that might not have been so clear. Let's say we place everyone on a scale of say, 1-100, with 1 being the most racist person possible who commits hate crimes, has a swastika tattoo, etc, while a 100 is the most perfectly anti-racist person possible. Under say, 30 points would be low enough to be a problem and over 70 would be exceptionally good. Most people would fall somewhere in between.

When you first meet someone before you know anything about them, you default them to a 50. Neither racist nor anti-racist. Then as you learn more about them that knowledge might position them differently. Discovering they did blackface in their younger years would make for a big deduction of say 25 points. So someone who was previously a 75 would drop to a 50. Not much of an issue. But someone who was already a 50 would drop to a 25. A bit of a problem. But in both cases the people are being treated equally. They were assigned their prior point position based on the same criteria which, for a politicians often means points are added or deducted based on their policies and public statements, while the same number of points were deducted for the transgression. The fact that the final total is different is not any form of inconsistency or unfairness and it makes a lot of sense that one would be scrutinized more closely than the other. But a big part of the problem is that some people aren't capable of such nuance.

Just came across this, he really has the soul of a comedian much like another Ottawa guy. RIP Before she got introduced I thought Pam was a celebrity, resembles Sigourney Weaver? Had to look it up, but the story Letterman tells about Tony Danza on The Love Boat is true.

• Video Link

Who would that be?

Arguing that a daytime talk show (The View) is indicative of the failings of all mainstream news organizations, just because it is produced by ABC's news division, is nonsensical. As for TMZ being a good source, I'd suggest that they subscribe to the "publish first, apologize later" school of journalism...

With regards to your initial post, the reason I called you out on it is that your shot at the CBC was clearly less about their coverage and more about your dislike for the network as a whole. That's counterproductive - and it potentially weakens posts where you might put forward valid arguments against them.

Maybe elly63 should not me arguing with someone as Tvisforme as a handle.

You seem to be making several incorrect assumptions in this post and I noticed you haven't mentioned again about the original issue of the time CBC posted the story which was several hours after everybody else and using TMZ as a source via an AP story posted to CBC.

And you were wrong again about my motive concerning the Perry story, they were way behind when everybody else had published, again the reason I posted. I do have a dislike for their present leftist activist leanings, far more prevalent on the website than on the few shows I still continue to occasionally see. For instance I watched a story on Israeli and Palestinian restauranters that I thought was fair. But if you want to believe Conservatives suddenly have an issue with the CBC for no valid reason even when they are not in power, and the ruling party should be under the microscope then hey, you be you.

Mods cheer lead now?

Nope, just figured the name meant something.

My apologies

Norm MacDonald of course :) Did some people think I meant JT (he's not funny) After my initial thoughts of Norm I wondered there must be another comedian from Ottawa so I looked it up. There was the guy who was acknowledged at one time as Canada's greatest comedian, Mike MacDonald. He had a funny routine about that. He was kind of like to Canadian comedy like what the Hip was to Canadian music. JMO.

I did know (and forgotten) about Tom Green and there was Dan Aykroyd and Rich Little but I was thinking pure standups primarily.

If you listen to Perry, his delivery and thought processes seem like what a standup would do, IMO.

Isn't Norm MacDonald more of a Québec City guy? At least officially?

AFAIK Elly is a TV guy as well.

Conservatives love to point out that Trump/Poilievre, etc. "live rent free" (I loathe that expression) in the minds of those on the centre/left, but man, I think they not only pay the rent for Trudeau, they bribe him to take up residence.

I have been a staunch defender of the CBC (and Radio-Canada) since my teen years and while some here think otherwise, I don't identify as a "conservative" like Elly does and won't be voting for the CPC in 2025.

That said I definitely sense some bias in the CBC and it has been growing in recent years. Not so much in terms of political parties (the Buffy Ste-Marie story isn't directly damaging to the Liberals, though perhaps it is to some of the ideology they defend) but definitely there are some ideological slants they seem to prefer over others.

Anything that some of us would call "woke" generally gets favourable or sympathetic treatment, and stuff that runs against those tenets is not typically portrayed in a positive light.

Admittedly you get this more in longer, talk-oriented programming on the CBC as opposed to newscasts, though the selection of what is covered by the news and what isn't, and what gets top billing and what gets a passing mention also tends to reflect this penchant.

With respect to the Buffy Ste-Marie story it's hard to see where it fits in to all of this, as on the one hand it has brought down one of the progressive movement's earliest and biggest shining lights, whereas on the other it is ironically very consistent with wokism's fondness for witch hunts, ideological and ethno-racial "purity" (masked as authenticity) and cancel culture.

I used to be a strong backer of the CBC as well but stopped watching 8-9 years ago. Actually, I tuned out 95% of mainstream media around the same time. It became too focused on the US, UK, monarchy, and celebrity. There's a whole big world out there beyond that narrow focus so I eventually got fed up and turned it off.

It takes far more effort on my part, but I stay informed about the world by doing my own digging online and talking to people from around the world. I'll never go back to being a sheep consuming what ever mainstream media shove in front of me. I have a laptop and mouse and can sort out what's what myself.

Buffy Ste Marie. I have nothing against her but have ZERO interest in what she said, what she didn't say, or what colour coat she's wearing today. CBC and mainstream media. I don't care about what they have to say either.

With all due respect I do think that political leanings and even personal affinities (does someone rub us the right or wrong way?) play a huge role in how much slack we're willing to cut to people.

Just thinking about Jacques Parizeau (not sure what your views on him are) but he had a pretty exemplary record and was even married to a concentration camp survivor for 35 years who was the mother of his children, and he refers - totally accurately, in fact - to "money and (some) ethnic voting" once and he's tarred and feathered as a horrible racist, fascist and even a Nazi.

Whatever his get-out-of-jail-card (married to a Holocaust survivor), Parizeau was out of line in the manner that he singled out ethnic people (and/or those with money, but that is not what provoked the negative reaction). He even admitted this years later, saying that his remarks "were most unfortunate and meriting the disapproval that they received". Singling out an ethnic group or groups as a scapegoat for electoral failure is irresponsible, especially when emotions are running high. It also has the effect of implying (which was the point) that these "ethnic" people are thwarting the will of "Nous"--i.e., the Quebecois de souche--and that by extension, are less "Quebeckers" than "Nous".

I don't think Parizeau is any more racist than Trudeau or for that matter Poilievre (which is to say, none of them are racist), but he used his bully pulpit to incite anger towards ethnic minorities. There were incidents of very foul language and vitriol received by some ethnic minorities in the aftermath of the referendum result. Parizeau should have known better. It was, and quite rightly so, a smear on an otherwise impressive professional career.

Mostly agree, with the caveat that Parizeau only re-stated what members of a whole bunch of communities had already said themselves, ie "all Jews must vote Non!", "all Italians must vote Non!", "all Greeks must vote Non!", etc.

About this historical moment, he also later said this:

«Je n'ai mis personne en prison et on m'a traité de fasciste et d'intolérant. C'est ça l'image. Pierre Trudeau a fait mettre 500 personnes en prison et c'est un grand démocrate. Je ne veux plus jouer ce jeu-là!»

Just noticed BTW that today is the 28th anniversary of that speech.

People tend to have a political affinity for people who do/say more things they approve of compared to people they disagree with. If say, someone cares about the rights and respectful treatment of a particular minority group then they're likely to affiliate with politicians and parties they feel are best in that regard. And if they feel a politician or party is best in that regard based on their prior track record then yes they'll give the person/party more leeway because of that history. But the fact that the politician/party garnered the person's trust and support to begin with tends to be because of things the person/party said and did. Obviously there are people who vote a certain way solely out of tradition or that's how their friends and family vote, but I'd be surprised if that's a very big percentage.

Agreed, though none of this precludes cutting people more or less slack for the exact same "sins" depending on whether someone is or isn't from the same ideological or political family.

For an example from the relationships world, think of the newlywed still madly in love with her hubby who thinks it's cute how he leaves his dirty underwear in a ball on the floor of the bathroom, versus the frustrated middle-aged wife who thinks her husband of 25 years is the worst asshole in the world for doing the exact same thing. (Actually the exact same person is capable of having the same reaction vis-à-vis the same husband at different stages of her life.)

To be clear, I'm not saying such a thing isn't possible. I'm just saying I don't think it's a factor in this case.

Also I'm not sure your example is the best one for what you're describing. In the case of newlyweds vs a long married couple, yes the wife will be more annoyed once she's been subjected to years of annoying bahaviour. But that is based on things the husband has actually done over the years affecting how she reacts to him and that dynamic would be consistent with any other partner she had. If the new spouse had done annoying things around her for 25 years she would be equally annoyed with him so there's nothing really inconsistent about her reaction. A better example would be something like, a person treating two of their partners differently when the two partners' track records of current and past behaviours were exactly same because one partner was taller or better looking than the other, or a different race etc. So she was just showing favouritism toward one based on things the partner had no control over.

The Buffy kerfuffle is a pretty good example of what I'm saying.

People who would normally be all reverential and hold all things specifically and uniquely Indigenous as sacrosanct are all pissed at the CBC for going after Buffy.

Why is that? Because they like Buffy and what she stands or stood for.

It doesn't matter what she did. What matters is that it's her that's involved.

Now, people should know that I am of the view that culture is mostly acquired as opposed to innate. So I happen to believe that people like Buffy should be able to become full-fledged members of an Indigenous nation.

Heck, I even think that there maybe should have been a way for someone as passionate as Rachel Dolezal to be considered a full-fledged member of the African-American community. (Minus all the fraud and deceit of course - actually, it wouldn't have been necessary in that case.)

But our times don't allow for such things.