Should the CBC boot Cherry and O’Leary?

don-cherryBy Frank Moher

It’s not at all a bad thing that CBC loudmouths Don Cherry and Kevin O’Leary have agitated some viewers lately, Cherry with his rant against former NHL enforcers who have come out against violence in hockey, and O’Leary with his interview of American journalist Chris Hedges, in which he told the Pulitzer Prize-winner “you sound like a left-wing nutbar” (to which Hedges replied “I don’t usually go on shows where people descend to character assassination”). The CBC has been at pains for some time now — roughly since Stephen Harper came to power — to demonstrate that it can dish-up right-wing opinion with just as much zeal as Fox News, and, servile as that may be, it has at least resulted in a welcome new pithiness at the MotherCorp.

However, while Cherry’s a clown, O’Leary’s just a clown act. You can tell that Grapes, for all his showboating and blowing of somebody’s budget on rococo suits (does the CBC pay for those things? Maybe we should shut it down), is genuine in his celebration of violence, whether from players on the ice or soldiers in Afghanistan. O’Leary, on the other hand, seems to be engaged in a branding exercise. His tired “greed-is-good” routine, which he trots out on both “Dragon’s Den” and, as with the Hedges incident, “The Lang and O’Leary Exchange,” is so calculated to offend stolid Canadian values that the CBC ought to add a glint to his smile and give him a moustache to twirl. It’s plain he thinks he’s remaking Canada in his own, Michael Douglas-without-a-toupee style, one rube at a time.

kevin-olearyBoth men are pursuing agendas with the potential to do harm. Indeed, decades of hockey violence have already left a lot of players brain-damaged, as a very good segment of “The National” demonstrated the other night. And the current Occupy Wall Street movement, not to mention the entire American economy, shows you where greed gets you. But that’s free speech for you; even dimbulbs have a right to it.

But while Cherry’s an institution, and thus untouchable, O’Leary’s preaching to a rapidly diminishing cohort. The CBC ought to get rid of him, not because his views offend some people, but because they’re so painfully stale-dated, and he delivers them about as convincingly as an informercial. If we want to wallow in ’80s nostalgia, we can always download a copy of Wall Street.

Comments

  1. Ed.M says

    Don Cherry and Kevin O’Leary need to be on TV, and I am one of those left-wing nutbars.

    Yes, the CBC needs to show ‘balance’ by having a couple of right-wingers on there once in a while. Sure, maybe they’re looking for brownie points there.

    But Grapes and Kevin need to be on there for another reason, and that is that there are a heck of a lot of Canadians who agree with them. It is not a tiny number. We on the left can’t ignore that. And, as principled people that we are, we must — grudgingly, if need be — allow the righ-wing nutbars to get on the soapbox too.

    There’s another good reason to keep them on: know your enemy. We need to keep tabs on these folks. Failing that, we’ll be in for some very rude surprises some day.

  2. Gurnn says

    O’leary is an ass, a walking, talking, cliche.

    The episode of Shark Tank where they showed how the sharks made their money showed what a hypocrite he is,,,he had one job in his life, for one day, and then quit because he couldn’t stand being told what to do. So then his mother gave him money to start his business.

    He is always complaining about how the govt. should is spending his (ie. tax payer’s) money. On this point I agree,,Why is the CBC paying this jerk any of “MY MONEY”

  3. Midas says

    Kevin O’Leary is the WORST human being Canada has produced… FIRE THAT JERK!

  4. Brad says

    I personaly think that censorship is wrong and in both instances of O’Leary and Cherry they are in my opinion just clowns and almost parodys of themselves. I will say that Lange deserves a more serious co-host than O’Leary and besides the whole “liberal/con clashing” format went out of broadcasting fashion like five years ago at least, not that there is that much clashing with the two hosts anways.

    That said though I will agree that there is a more serious issue with the “At Issue” panel which does have a center-right prejudice with Coyne and McDonald and Rex Murphy when he gets off his holier than thou throne and joins them. As well I am surprised no one mentioned Rex Murphy here since I presonally find his weekly rants usually on inane topics in the most pompous of tones (praising the monarchy, mocking the NDP and the Tim Hortons menu changes being some of his recent ones that either annoyed or befuddled me) to be as clownish as Cherry and O’Leary and he too is just a parody of him self except with a better thesaurus.

    That said I also know that I can get balance with Evan Saloman on PnP and some incixve progressive views from Rick Mercer. Not sure If I would want the CBC becoming a progessive alternative to Sun TV or a northern version of Current or MSNBC though just think that maybe some of the commentors there could be a little less cartoonish.

  5. Dave Ford says

    Christopher Hedges is not a left wing nut bar. However, Kevin O’Leary was quite right: her certainly sounded like a leftwing nutbar with his comments in the early part of the interview about Karl Marx being correct about corporations commidifying everything to collapse. By making that provocative statement, Mr. O’Leary forcced Mr. Hedges to rephrase his remarks such that they were more sensible. If Mr. O’Leary hadn’t made that comment, I would have also concluded that Mr. Hedges was a left wing nut bar. That would have been an incorrect conclusion.

    I guess my point is that it may be true that Kevin O’Leary needs to tone down his Dragon’s Den venture capitalist rhetoric when conducting a serious news interview. However, journalists like Christopher Hedges also need to tone their rhetoric when speaking to a general audience.

  6. Sharon says

    I love watching Lang &O Oleary. Although the guests they have on the show replacing them are great its just not the same without Kevin&Amanda.. Kevin is greatly misunderstood and is wrongly judged by alot of blowbhards that spout off half truths using minimal facts.. Every once in a while he does cross the line…i chalk it up to passion. I appreciate his no nonsense approach. I have learned alot about businesses watching them every evening.
    KEVIN AND AMANDA ROCK!!!

  7. John Wilson says

    Kevin O’Leary is a stupid, ugly, capitalist, fascist scumbag that spews inhuman venom every time he opens his cake hole. He sees himself as the Canadian version of Donald Trump so why doesn’t he complete the image and get himself some plugs so he can manage a comb-over. Lang O’Leary would be much better with an educated, less extreme view point from the right. The CBC should fire his fat ass.

  8. says

    Well then, how about picking this thread up with some talk about O’Leary’s new faux-reality show, Redemption Inc.? An easy target, I know, but what with our tax dollars promo-ing the shit outta this show–making it some kind of blue-chip CBC property–I believe that this is what North Americans call “Big-Titted Fair Game.”

    First of all, in the extended promo for Redemption Inc., O’Leary states, “I don’t care what the public thinks” of the show or its premise. Yeah, right! I’m pretty sure he’ll be caring what the public thinks when the ratings come in.

    Which reminds me: O’Leary must certainly think that Government can do a few things well, like fund and operate a semi-public broadcaster that will pay him more than BNN for his services.

    But the bloated elephant on your 720p screen is just the first thought you have when your hear the premise of the show, or, at least, this was my first thought: “When Kevin O’Leary wants new recruits for business, banking or investment, he goes to where the best fodder is to be found: convicted criminals!! I mean, really: who could have better experience at thinking outside the box? And so what if you got caught and got thrown into another box?! You’ve already demonstrated that you’ve got that maverick spirit that is so needed in getting an unfair advantage over your competitors!

    I would also note that while the Grand Prize is a paltry $100,000, you probably wouldn’t want to give any of these folks any more than is necessary to start up a grow-op.

    Peace be with you

  9. Jon Gilber says

    While it is very commendable that he is helping those who are out of jail start a new life (Redemption Inc.) and even a new business, this is very different than how he has very differently dealt not so nicely with many hard working and law abiding citizens on Dragon’s Den. An interesting question to ask is how much does he get paid by the CBC a government funded (tax payer) crown corporation for all of his shows? Also, does his shows get special government funding or does he put some of his money into financing it since he is a rich guy? How much do the rich Dragons get paid on the Dragon’s Den show? People want to know. Maybe the current government will be trimming the CBC’s big budget this year.

  10. Mario says

    To the commenter (John) who (mis)quoted Hedges and then referred to him as a “left-winger”…
    You (conveniently) left out the one word from his quote that COMPLETELY changes the meaning of what his sentence ACTUALLY was.
    The CORRECT quote was: “…corporations THAT don’t produce anything”
    NOT
    “Corporations don’t produce anything”.
    How typical. All you have to do is omit ONE word and the entire meaning and context of the sentence changes. Why am I not surprised that it was the right-winger who did the misquoting?
    He wasn’t saying that ALL corporations are bad and don’t produce anything. He (rightfully) said that they were speaking out against corporations THAT don’t produce anything.
    I won’t get into it here, but as of late, I have noticed a VERY sharp right-ward turn in the CBC’s editorial stances (and yes, even their wording of certain News stories).
    I personally wouldn’t mind O’Leary and the likes of him if the CBC had a counterpoint point of view commentator on, but when you like at the “in-depth panel” on, for instance, The National, it is STACKED with people who have worked for the PC Party, and not enough of the other side is represented (and that’s just ONE TINY example).
    So, if O’Leary’s immature behaviour was in violation of a CBC code or whatnot, then SOME form of consequence should be imposed upon him (warning, forced-to-apologize, fired…etc..I don’t know).
    But somehow I doubt that will happen, since the CBC has decided to abandon its once-neutral and objective stance, for an extremely lopsided and unbalanced alignment with the right-of-centre point of view and parties.
    As a “left-winger” myself, I can say that the CBC USED to be very fair and balanced (proof of that is that half the time I was VERY pleased with their presentation, the other half I was annoyed, disgusted and angered). Sadly, now they have chosen to align themselves with the right, making them no different (well, maybe not AS bad and heinous) as the privately-owned media with their right-wing propaganda.
    (Let’s face it, the majority of the media has SUCH a blatant right-wing bias that ANYONE presenting an actual fair and balanced coverage is IMMEDIATELY labelled as “left-wing-biased”.). Could it be that the reason for this shift is that they are buckling in the face of the threats and pressure by the neoCON gov’t to either cut or eliminate their funding for DARING to present anything but right-wing propaganda? I think that might have alot to do with it.
    If so, then STILL, shame on you CBC. In the face f such bullying and threats you should stand your ground in the name of journalistic integrity and fairness. Don’t let the right-wingers SCARE you into conforming and becoming right-wing biased as a result of their labelling your once-fair and balanced approach as “left-biased”.
    Also, don’t forget, that as awful as the non-existent-anymore Progressive Conservative Party of Canada once was with its centre-right stance, even THEY would be considered “leftists” by the current so-called “Conservative” government (when, as everyone knows, in reality the current government is NOT the “Conservative Party”, but rather the “Reform Party”, a party so dangerously and far right-wing that they actualy make the Progressive Conservatives of the old days look like moderates!
    A lot of people don’t realize this until they actually hear this sentence, but we are currently being governed by the Reform Party. You can put lipstick on and change the name of a pig all you want, but it’ll still remain a pig …just like you can change the name of the Reform-Alliance Party to the “Conservatives”, but they’re still the Canadian Conservative Reform Alliance Party (CCRAP).
    Come on, CBC, I have ALWAYS been STAUNCHLY in favour of having the CBC as one of our national treasures and would always STAUNCHLY oppose shutting it down/eliminating or cutting your funding, but you can’t just expect the loyal support of ppl like myself when you’ve abandoned your once-upon-a-time fair, neutral, balanced approach.
    My stance on this would not change even if instead of a right-wing bias, you guys started showing a left-wing bias. Being unbiased is what makes the CBC the CBC… or was, at least.
    Also, one last thing: Another example of this recent bias is your seemingly more favourable and bigger coverage of the right-wing parties (The Conservative Party and The Liberal Party of Canada). In addition to what I said about your giving in to the threats and bullying of the CONservative Party, you seem to be forgetting that the OFFICIAL OPPOSITION in Ottawa right now is NOT The Liberal Party, but it is the New Democratic Party of Canada (NDP). So, WHY are you still giving more air time to the Liberals as “opposition” rather than the NDP , when the NDP has 103 seats , while the Grits are merely a third-party on opposition benches with barely 34 members??
    It’s disrespectful of how our parliamentary system is run in many ways. The Liberal Party of Canada (while it USED to be a great party) has moved so far to the right that they are now simply the Conservative-Lite Party. So your mouthpiece-ing the right-wing government, virtually ignoring the ELECTED Official Opposition (NDP) and giving undue coverage time to yet another right-wing party, treating them as “opposition”, when , in fact, they are in third-party status. What gives.
    As for Don Cherry… who the f**k cares about him anyway. Does anyone actually still listen to this clown? I know they HEAR him, but does anyone in their right-mind actually LISTEN to or care about his anymore?
    Anyways… just my stance and point of view on it.
    I do agree completely with the article.
    Ok, rant over.

  11. says

    Today (1/3/12) Bloomberg published an article entitled:
    “Did Psychopaths Take Over Wall Street?”
    I sure would like to hear Leary comment on the article which by the way makes a lot of sense.

    P.S.: Glad to see there’s a web site dedicated to stopping these two egocentric self promoters use public money to promote themselves.

    Bloomberg article at: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-01-03/did-psychopaths-take-over-wall-street-asylum-commentary-by-william-cohan.html

  12. doug caswell says

    Please get rid of Kevin Oleary. He is obnoxious and an anarcharist. I hope that he rots in Hell.

  13. Mike says

    I’ve watched Dragons Den for a while now. More & more, Mr. O’Leary is becoming ruder, more arrogant & nasty as the episodes progress. He is insulting & degrading. He had a beginning once…never was he the multi-millionaire at the beginning. His eyes are beady, & his dialogic is demeaning & sarcastic.
    He has to go.

  14. Jack says

    I like money, and I like greed are things that come out of the mouth of evil people those that are greedy are the ones that are responsible for the mess on this planet. The Boreal Forest and the RainForest are being destroyed by the greedy, but in the end they will be destroying themselves. All their money won’t save them like they my think it will and the rich are but one percent, I think that the 99% can run them out of town easily enough. Now I am not saying that all are greedy but unfortunitly most are.

  15. Michael De Young says

    It’s comforting to know that other people are embarrassed by these two baboons. There may have been a time in the fifties where that level of ignorance was celebrated, but we’ve gotten a lot more civilized since then.
    The CBC is clearly changing form, now we watch back to back commercials that scream the message at us twice, just in case we didn’t get it the first time.
    Give Don Cherry a job as a mascot, and tell O’Leary we’re not buying what he’s trying to sell, and I’ll pay more attention to the CBC. And please stop with the screaming commercials.

  16. John says

    I find it some what ironic. First you question character assassination saying it is a bad thing yet arguably you are committing the exact same offence (calling some one you don’t agree with a clown or clown act is also character assignation). Now i am not a fan of those kinds of debates, the idea of firing them because they are some of the few right wing members on a highly left-wing (taxpayer funded) broadcaster is ridiculous. Do not confuse left wing, politically correct, ideology as Canadian values that just show ignorance to our past and tyrannical interpretation of Rousseau so-called general will ideas. Canadian values are not just your values but are also the values of your opponents. (if you can quantify such an ambiguous term as values) For you to push for the CBC that takes the taxpayers money to advocate for you personal ideology and leave many Canadians alienated is simply wrong. The CBC has for a long time shown that it is not a balanced broadcaster but generally shows a centre left to liberal stance, i think it is time to rethink the utility of giving them a direct subsidy of over a billion dollars a year. De-fund the CBC.

  17. Luis Ceriz says

    O’Leary is so far out of his depth it would be comical if it wasn’t so sad. He personifies the narrow, fear-mongering, name calling kind of ‘conservative’ that daily reduces real dialogue to mud slinging.
    He’s the reason I no longer watch Dragon’s Den.

  18. Luis Ceriz says

    O’Leary is so far out of his depth it would be comical if it wasn’t so sad. He personifies the narrow, fear-mongering, name calling kind of ‘conservative’ that daily reduces real dialogue to mud slinging.

  19. David Langille says

    I fully support your comments about both Kevin O’Leary and Don Cherry.

    I watched O’Leary beat up on Linda McQuaig recently — saying she was “really evil” and full of “nonsense”, and she should fear for her safety on leaving the studio. Why was he allowed to get away with this? Imagine if someone referred to Amanda Lang or any other woman in a similar fashion?

    I have stopped watching hockey because of the fighting which Cherry encourages.

    Fortunately, there are alternatives. This past Monday, CBC Metro Morning had Jim Stanford on as their business columnist in place of Michael Hlinka. Stanford spoke to my interests and concerns about the business community, far more so than Hlinka ever did.

    The CBC needs to consider whether they want to present the perspective of the 1% — or the rest of us, the 99% who support our public broadcaster with our taxes and our votes in Parliament.

    As a former friend of public broadcasting, I despair when I see the CBC conveying “A messages from Canada’s Oil Sands Producers”, or choosing corporate hacks as your radio or television personalities in a desperate bid to maintain Government funding.

    Harper never forgets his base. Nor should the CBC.

  20. Chris says

    First off lets be clear Kevin O’Leary shouldn’t have resorted to name calling as its so Fox news but Chris Hedges a former writer for the Christain Science Moniter gimme a break. He is a clear advocate of the left. As for these Occuppy Wall Streeters they shouldn’t be blaming Wall Street they should be blaming Washington and government for the constant interference with capitalism. Stop bailing out bank,unions, any company.Let people with capital (yes the 1% instead of complaing try and become that 1% people with nothing join that group every day) jobs get created by enterprenuers who want to make money ( Steve Jobs, Bill Gates) and in making money they can make more if they hire people and grow thier business and yes some business grow into billion dollar businesses is something wrong with that. Public sector workers are not owed a job and good pay from private sector tax dollars if union workers think they are worth so much why do u ask for government bail outs. At least the banks have paid most iof it back but I would have preferred for them to fail. Government stop bailing out everyone that includes banks, unions, and no stimulus…..I am curious all these occupy wall street they claim to speak for 99% actually the 99% are mostly looking for or working they actually speak for the lazy unemaployed on academic probation

  21. tim woota says

    Based on the interview on CBC with Chris Hedges, I believe he is in violation of Canadian Broadcasting Corporation Policy 2.2.21 Code of Conduct. Mr. Kevin O’Leary should resign his position or be fired. We need a more broad minded and intelligent individual to probe crucial questions that reach to the heart of Canadian citizens. O’Leary is not worth our Canadian Tax Dollars, fire the %%$## and find someone with more journalistic knowledge, intellect and integrity.

  22. shvingy says

    O’Leary is a god amongst left wing devils. I have had enough of Canada’s left wing propaganda. In fact they should give him the entire CBC, the whole thing, and let him get it to make money so it can stop sponging off of the hard working middle class tax payer who rarely watch a network targeted at unemployed lefties. Oh yes, I forgot Anne of Green Gables is on tonight………blah.

    P.S. Kevin you rule.

  23. Jamie says

    Boot O’Leary for sure. Don just needs a good talkin’ too to remind him what century he’s in.

  24. TT Esty says

    I would argue that both O’Leary and Cherry have an important role on national TV and that role is to allow us to see the corporate face of our country. For the most part, the CEO’s operate incognito. We do not see their faces nor even know their names. Our attention is directed to the corporation or its logo and we tend to forget that these corporations are guided by humans. O’Leary and Cherry give us a glimpse at the type of people behind the corporation since they represent the culture of that 1%.

    Their use of such terms as ‘nutbar’ and ‘pukes’ gives us an insight into how we are regarded by O’Leary and Cherry and their cultural peers. These same folk who argue that they are job creators and should have exclusivity view those who disagree, or see a different pathway with disdain.

    Keep in mind also, that the main objective of these One Percenters is the accumulation of wealth while for most folk the goal it is simply the providing for home, hearth, and family. Thus, there is a major difference in goals. The O’Leary crowd sees us as misguided and deserving of our servitude position. Seeing them as persons allows us to see greed personified.

  25. Mark says

    O’Leary has got to go. He’s really just trying to create a Kevin O’Leary brand name. It’s painfully obvious. A real interesting piece of information would be what his actual net worth is. He keeps it closely guarded but I’d hazard a guess it’s no close to what he’d like people to think it is.

  26. LAWRENCE says

    Both Cherry and Oleary are attention seeking media who*es. Would I trust Oleary with my money? No! He comes across as a typical con man, lacking empathy and compassion. Self absorbed with his self interest in mind. Not someone that I want on my team. Oh….Oleary that saying applies to you…they can take you out of the trailer park but they cannot take the trailer park out of you.

  27. Matt says

    Fire O’Leary, give him a taste of reality. Besides, he is a terrible interviewer and a condescending, abrasive person.

    $100M are being cut because people like O’leary crashed the economy. Thank them for it.

  28. Craig says

    These 2 clowns should be fired and deported immediately but what other country would want to take them ?

  29. Tom says

    Wow. What’s wrong with Canada is that you have no sense of humour. You really got to stop taking everything so seriously.

    And by the way, Hedges might be a great writer and journalist, but he has absolutely no economic, financial or common-sense qualification whatsoever.

    People who preach nutty ideology in fields they have no experience in need to be called out and put in their place. If we take anyone too seriously, but especially them, we’re in trouble.

  30. Ashley says

    The O’Leary – Hedges interview could have been very different if O’Leary had chosen his words more carefully. I don’t mind hearing arguments between those who share different opinions. I am always eager to see things from the other side, but not when it’s done in such a demeaning, condescending fashion. O’Leary could have made his point without the school yard name-calling and obnoxious attitude. Or perhaps he is not capable of doing so. If that is the case, he should absolutely be sacked. Personally I can’t stand the man. Antics to get ratings is one thing, but when people start boycotting your station as a result of such antics, you have to seriously consider making a change.

  31. kevin says

    Kevin O’leary proves that you can have as much money as you want but you cannot buy your way out of idiocy.

  32. Terry says

    If you go to the cbc website, you can get to “contact us” (just enter it in the search box), and you can email a message of complaint re: O’Leary.

  33. Tim Cork says

    The time has come for the Canadian media to exalt mentors that have honourable values like compassion and understanding rather than knee-jerk attitudes designed to perpetuate a lifestyle of greed and emotion.

  34. William Badger says

    O’Leary and Cherry. Are these two what Canadians wish to be represented by?
    I do not think so and must depend on the CBC to set the record right if it is capable of doing so.
    If it is not willing or capable of doing so then we have lost an organization that was admired for its independence.

  35. jason yendes says

    well I have often wondered what a talking sphincter would sound like…thank you Kevin O’Leary and to think it came from someone with such a phallic like head. you are everything that’s wrong with canada kev. do us all a favour and cut your own head off and mail it to fox news. you scum sucking american pig in disguise. don cherry simply isn’t worth a comment.

  36. Craig says

    Instead of firing O’Leary, the CBC should hire Chris Hedges for the express purpose of slapping that shallow nitwit down every single night.
    Same goes for HNIC. Why not give Ron MacLean free rein to point out, each and every time, exactly when and to what degree Don Cherry is making like a horse’s arse?

  37. alexander says

    I was so utterly infuriated by this exchange…
    Oleary a classless, megalomaniac imbecile who envisions himself the canadian donald trump interviewing the always eloquent, intelligent pulitzer prize winning author Chris Hedges.
    Now the CBC can hide as much as it wants behind the fact that Oleary is not a journalist and more of a character/opinion to add colour…..his name is still deeply entwined with the CBC and represents it especially in an interview which I assume Hedges welcomed believing to be a little less slanted than Fox!

    I think O’Leary needs to be fired….1.1 billion of federal tax dollars goes towards the CBC and I used to rely on it for news….. but empowering, loud, wealthy, obnoxious, simon cowell-wanabees to debate figuires such as Hedges is pathetic; besides there’s already a show for this …its called the O’Reilly Factor.

  38. Dave says

    Search the name Kevin O’Leary these days and the description that most frequently appears is “shallow, blow hard.” And watching the embarrassing exchange, probably the worst since Sarah Palin sat down for a few simple questions with Katie Couric, makes me wonder why the CBC would continue to employ him.

  39. GB says

    The CBC should off anyone in the position of delivering the news who willing to stoop to personal insults and name calling. It is immature, unprofessional and speaks volumes as to the character and intelect of those who engage in it. Center, Left or Right wing, behavior like that should not be tolerated from any Canadian news organization, especially from one that is publicly funded.

    And by the way Robmik43, please remember that it is OUR taxes that fund these programs and we deserve intelligent discourse.

    We don’t need childish behavior from either side of the argument. What O’Leary said was childish and unsuitable for a news outlet , Don Cherry on the other hand, has made a career of being childish but is an entertainer, no more.

  40. says

    I have refused to watch NHL hockey for many years and will continue to do until Don cherry is no longer making a red cent from the game. I also refused to enter a national restaurant. chain that hired him as spokesperson. It is equally prudent that O’leary be sent kicking turds down the road.

  41. P.J. says

    The NHL is still better than the NFL. What, with making hitting illegal, forcing everyone to wear pink and instant replays every other play…I’ll take hockey any day of the week.

  42. Suzz says

    i am sure the virus will just move on to Sun TV…..that is what is so great about choices….we can personally choose what it is we want to watch….sometimes it is funny to watch these old guys make complete asses of them selves on national tv (it was really great how Chris handled him self with Kevin and for that i am grateful….sometimes it is downright embarrassing (i am just happy i am not related to either of them) either way CBC if that is what you choose to air…hey…maybe they can follow it up with reruns of – The Trouble With Tracy

  43. Brian says

    Saw the Hedges interview last night and it got me to thinking exactly what you describe, that the CBC should get rid of O’Leary and the other right wing nutbar Cherry at once. I got rid of TV because of the vile display of ignorance that seemed to dominate every bit of discourse. I had hoped that the CBC was the one place left that you could count on to provide thoughtful insight into news and opinion, but it appears that is no longer the case. Since I couldn’t find any place on the CBC website to tell them this directly, I am saying it here.

  44. John says

    Hedges has morphted into a left-wing nutbar. Two quotes from the interview: “If we don’t break the back of corporations…” “Corporations don’t produce anything.” He tried to backtrack and say he was only referring to Wall Street firms, but that was clearly a lie.

  45. David Dubois says

    The only reason I became a CBC member to voice my complete and utter dismay and the new low in which CBC journalism has stooped. To allow that trite insulting interview from O’Leary I would have expected from Fox news but CBC wow. There should be some accountability in journalism when you are funded by taxpayers money. I am outraged and offended by such cheap tactics.

  46. Jean says

    I had not seen anything to do with O’Leary until I watched that appalling interview with Hedges. What an obnoxious man (and I don’t mean Hedges!) I am an avid fan of CBC and I cannot imagine why they feel they need to have a moron like that as part of the stable. God knows there are enough stations and networks with people like that…we don’t need any more. And Cherry? Another embarrassment. He is close to being a neanderthal and again….what of real value does he contribute? He and O’Leary seem to be doing what they do simply to attract attention to themselves. Ugh.

  47. Paul D says

    Hello Admin,
    your comment
    “But while Cherry’s an institution, and thus untouchable,”
    is irresponsible as it festers an archaic mentality that some in society can get away with anything
    all cherry wants to do is maintain the sale of his rockem sockem dvds
    I saw to tell both of them “adios, and it was great while it lasted”
    Have a great Thanksgivinf to all
    Paul D

  48. says

    Mr. O’Leary’s comments were outragously rude. Personally I would like to see him gone. He sings the same old song and he is obnoxious, particularly obnoxious to Chris Hedges on Friday Oct 7. Away with him!!!

  49. Margaret Sheremata says

    Yes, by all means fire Kevin O’Leary. In my opinion CBC owes Chris Hedges an apology. You don’t invite a guest ( a man of stature) from another country to talk about their book and immediately mock the guest by calling them “a left wing nutbar”. O’leary is not classy enough to apologize to anyone.

  50. robmik43 says

    Since it’s also MY taxes that fund the CBC, I think Cherry or O’Leary should remain on the air.
    The CBC is drastically short of people who don’t fly with two left wings….the slightest bit of controversy sends the usual suspects into a “let’s fire them” rant…life is not meant to be one endless drone of Vinyl Cafe monotony.

  51. says

    I couldn’t have said it better than Jeff did. Don Cherry is what’s wrong with Canada. The fact that so few people are not more vocal about it shows to what level we have sunk nationally.

  52. lenka says

    I don’t have tv so haven’t seen CBC programming for some time but have briefly seen the pathetic dragon’s den and O’leary as The Donald’s wannabe.

    The interview with Chris Hedges was so embarassing to watch – poor O’Leary – and what an easy target. CBC should just put him out of his misery and their spotlight. Much more humane than keeping using him in this way.

  53. Jeff says

    It’s twisted of me but I thoroughly enjoyed seeing lamebrained O’Leary slaughtered by an unencumbered intellect, unlike poor Ms. Lange who must feign both a tolerance of O’Leary and engagement in their “discourse” as part of the nightly shtick. Yes, please replace him with a business advocate with cogence and class e.g. someone of (CFRB’s) John Tory’s ilk.

    As for Don Cherry, I stopped watching NHL hockey in the mid 70’s when the likes of Cherry and Fred Shiro lowered the sporting integrity to the realm of roller derby or professional wrestling. Most Canadians embraced it however. A literal slaughter that thoroughly sickened me yet still did not affect Canadians’ lust for violent hockey was that of Steve Moore at the hands of Todd Bertuzzi. Go figure. Unlike the nightly business news, sports broadcasting is trivial and I could not care less about Mr. Cherry’s appearances or utterances.

  54. Jeff says

    While I am persoanlly not a fan of either of these two clowns. I think if people find them entertaining they should be allowed to entertain. That said, the cbc has a responsibility beyond entertainiment, it’s news division in particular, and I think they really need to clean house (ie fire O’Leary) and evaluate teh cultural value of their programming outside of the news dvision.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>