Incisive debate
- in·ci·sive (/inˈsīsiv/) adj.
- 1. (of a person or mental process) Intelligently analytical and clear-thinking.
- 2. (of an account) Accurate and sharply focused: “the songs offer incisive pictures of Canadian ways”.
That, in a word, is what I like about the CBC, especially their Radio and Podcast releases. Their TV and online stuff can be a bit shallow and one dimensional, but when people like Paul Kennedy or Nora Young get a chance to stretch their wings, the results are often worth listening too. The reason I bring this up is that there’s been—as what some people perceive—a low intensity conflict between that’s been brewing between our current government and the naitonal broadcaster.
Most critics of the CBC says that it is a bit too ‘left’ leaning, maybe that assumption is correct. I say maybe because I’m not really sure what it means to be ‘left’ or ‘right’. Regardless, I think a lot of the times people will be surprised some of the different perspectives that are offerd on their airwaves and online offerings.
Case and point, the latest series from Ideas entitled ‘Demon Coal’. It’s about climate change… I usually don’t listen to stuff about climate change because most of the time the debate tends to degenerate into histerics and nastiness. However, the series is an example of why I like the CBC. It’s not about presenting both sides of the argument (as if there’s only ever two sides), but about having an honest and civil conversation and not pulling your punches when things don’t makes sense.
The points that are made about the unpredictability of climate models in the first part and the dangers of ‘cap-and-trade’ schemes in the second are worth the collective 1.5 hours you’ll spend listening to this.
