CBC Tuesday July 8/13 Dawkins & Krauss

[Captain Canada]

TUESDAYJULY 9, 2013
On Tuesday, two great minds are in the red chair: evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins and theoretical physicist Lawrence Krauss will sit down to talk about religion. Both men argue the world would be a better place if religion played a less central role in culture, politics and society. Their new documentary is called 'The Unbelievers'. The Panel features the hilarious Gilson Lubin.


http://www.cbc.ca/strombo/weekly-schedule/guests-week-of-july-8-2013.html

 

[Corsair 115]

Ugh. Pity those guests couldn't be on a show with a good, knowledgeable interviewer instead be being stuck with Stroumboulopoulos - witness his softball interview with John Edward from a year or two ago.

(I still want to know how a guy who's main claim to fame is being a VJ on MuchMusic wins a talk/interview show on CBC television. Though I note his program started out at an hour long but was unceremoniously cut to a half-hour after just one season.)

 

[FFed]

Ugh, being the CBC no doubt the discussion will turn into how evil the Conservatives are and how the poor Natives are victims of something. They use any excuse to advance their socialist and pro Native agenda.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Ugh, being the CBC no doubt the discussion will turn into how evil the Conservatives are and how the poor Natives are victims of something. They use any excuse to advance their socialist and pro Native agenda.

 

[pchams]

The CBC should have an 'N' in the call letters for nepotism.
A more inbred broadcaster does not exist. Dawkins could talk about that.

 

[Fitter]

The CBC should have an 'N' in the call letters for nepotism.
A more inbred broadcaster does not exist. Dawkins could talk about that.

Only because Canwest went bankrupt.

 

[fitzgibbon]

Ugh, being the CBC no doubt the discussion will turn into how evil the Conservatives are and how the poor Natives are victims of something. They use any excuse to advance their socialist and pro Native agenda.

As opposed to the libertarian, anti-Native agendas of Québecor, Shaw, Bell and Rogers. Which while none of the aforementioned actually exist (well, not as an absolute with Québecor [Sun 'News' Network notwithstanding]), the preceding facile assertions from Ezra's Big Book of BS© (not coming to Indigo anytime soon) really is beyond the pale. I don't think for a second there's a disinterested observer that wouldn't agree that for a country our size and population, as with many things federal governments have become notoriously stingy given the array of tasks the Corporation is expected to undertake.

Comparing their news coverage with that of Global (Shaw), any CTV property (Bell), CITY (Rogers) et al they come away far more balanced while not being obsequious to the government. They also don't constantly source US broadcasters' coverage (with the understandably attendant US slant). Neither is their schedule predominantly US-centric which you surely can't say about the other majors. I don't bother including SNN in this because like their schedule, they're all talk; the lowest common denominator and the cheapest television to produce.

But of course none of this will change your mind. I know that because t'isn't facts you're interested in.

The CBC should have an 'N' in the call letters for nepotism.
A more inbred broadcaster does not exist. Dawkins could talk about that.

And this profundity comes from......what exactly? Your long and deep experience?

No, really. I want to know

Fitz

 

[fitzgibbon]

Ugh, being the CBC no doubt the discussion will turn into how evil the Conservatives are and how the poor Natives are victims of something. They use any excuse to advance their socialist and pro Native agenda.

So FFed, Corsair...did you watch the show? If so, what comments?

Fitz

 

[Corsair 115]

So FFed, Corsair...did you watch the show? If so, what comments?

Nope, don't have TV at the moment. Even if I did, Strombo as interviewer makes it a no-go. I did see a Krauss lecture on cosmology given at the Perimeter Institute when it was shown as part of TVO's Big Ideas program a couple of years ago. Interesting stuff.

 

[Captain Canada]

It was a short interview, the positive of it all is that people like this are on the air and being noticed and people are thinking.

 

[fitzgibbon]

Nope, don't have TV at the moment. Even if I did, Strombo as interviewer makes it a no-go. I did see a Krauss lecture on cosmology given at the Perimeter Institute when it was shown as part of TVO's Big Ideas program a couple of years ago. Interesting stuff.

Sorry you see it that way. I don't watch him all the time but don't see him in the negative light you do. The interviews are always cut down for length but even then, the guests I've seen him interview have appeared to enjoy the experience. It'd be nice if the format allowed the extended discussions to be aired but unfortunately, the majority of the target audience will disengage and the larger opportunity is lost as Captain Canada alluded to. If it twigs the interest of a percentage of the audience to find out more, more's the better.

My $.02 Canuck

Fitz

 

[Corsair 115]

If Dawkins and Krauss had been on The Agenda and been interviewed by Steve Paikan, I'd watch that. On Strombo's show, not so much. Stombo is a lighweight, softball interviewer. Which is fine as far as it goes. I guess I just prefer a bit more meat and less gravy in interviews. YMMV.

 

[fitzgibbon]

If Dawkins and Krauss had been on The Agenda and been interviewed by Steve Paikan, I'd watch that. On Strombo's show, not so much. Stombo is a lighweight, softball interviewer. Which is fine as far as it goes. I guess I just prefer a bit more meat and less gravy in interviews. YMMV.

Yeah but you're comparing apples and oranges in terms of show types. Give Paikan 10 minutes to interview whomever and you aren't going to have "The Agenda"; you'll have Strombo right quick. It's just the nature of the beast. Also, the 7-8 timeslot isn't noted for shows with profundity and depth; I mean Strombo's competing with the likes of ET Canada et al and the expectation is generally that to survive in that slot you have to appeal to the mouth-breathing set (or at least not drive them off). To even have Dawkins and Krauss on under the circumstances is a win.

I don't watch a ton of interview shows by-and-large but having caught Strombo more in the late-night iteration than the present one, I can't say I share your disdain for his interviewing abilities. With some guests, there are often a number of factors at play that aren't evident on the surface and to pillory him for being held hostage under such circumstances is to be shooting the messenger IMHO

Fitz

 

[Corsair 115]

I don't watch a ton of interview shows by-and-large but having caught Strombo more in the late-night iteration than the present one, I can't say I share your disdain for his interviewing abilities.

I guess my beef with him is this: I don't like the fact he was parachuted into CBC and given a show all his own when there must have been plenty of deserving in-house CBC personnel with many years of experience who ought to have had a chance at their own show. For what it's worth, I feel exactly the same way about Amanda Lang.

 

[fitzgibbon]

I guess my beef with him is this: I don't like the fact he was parachuted into CBC and given a show all his own when there must have been plenty of deserving in-house CBC personnel with many years of experience who ought to have had a chance at their own show. For what it's worth, I feel exactly the same way about Amanda Lang.

The things is, if top management is trying to attract a different-and-younger demographic that doesn't necessarily think of the CBC, do you try to generate that audience with in-house on-air talent or is it more cost-effective to buy the sizzle? FWIW, it was also a time for him where he (among others) were seen by MM as too old for the desired-by-their-sponsors thoughtless-and-free-spending demo.

As far as Amanda Lang goes, I'm quite sure that she was a package deal with Mr. Wonderful and also carries the added benefit of throwing a spanner in the programming works at BNN.

Honestly, the Mother Corp has been less considerably less ruthless to its employees than the private broadcasters (not that they're paying industry-leading wages, I might add [assertions or suggestions to the contrary by anti-CBCers nothwithstanding]). But if Steve and co. can find a way to get past the Mike and Pamela Scandal Hour, I fully expect they'll do their level best to eviscerate public broadcasting in this country before calling the next election because the CBC isn't lickspittle to the Reform mindset.

Fitz

 

[fitzgibbon]

Just as a follow-up, "The National" played part of one of his interview with Cory Monteith from 2011. Didn't see anything approaching "lighweight, softball interviewer".

Just sayin'
Fitz

 

[qayak]

Just as a follow-up, "The National" played part of one of his interview with Cory Monteith from 2011. Didn't see anything approaching "lighweight, softball interviewer".

Just sayin'
Fitz

Strombo is a great interviewer. I haven't noticed him give anyone a pass but I have found that he lets people talk and express their point of view. It really is refreshing to have an interviewer who knows the show is about the guest, not them.

 

[Jono]

I've seen/heard a few interviews/talks with Krauss and he does seem to have a penchant for ramblin' on. At times I find it hard to stay focused on the main points because from one second to another he can be talking something completely different. No doubt this is in part because english is my second language, but I never get the same experience from listening to Daniel Dennett, Richard Dawkins, Steven Pinker, Sam Harris, Randi, Feynman, Matt Dillahunty, Meredith Small et al.

 

[Corsair 115]

I've seen/heard a few interviews/talks with Krauss and he does seem to have a penchant for ramblin' on.

Thanks for reminding me of that, I'd forgotten. I haven't seen Strombo's show in awhile, so maybe it's gotten better, but good grief, he used to talk and talk and talk. I suspected he was in love with the sound of his own voice and thus the sometimes interminably long, meandering questions. I remember trying to stifle the urge to yell at the TV, "Shut up already George and let your guest answer!".

As to interview quality, watch the one he did with "psychic" John Edward, then tell me what you think.