“Taming the dragon: Should the CBC muzzle Kevin O’Leary?” was the title of an article by Marsha Lederman in Toronto’s Globe and Mail last Saturday. Kevin O’Leary is a television personality who regularly appears on the publicly-owned CBC and models himself on his colleagues on Fox News in the United States.
This is the first paragraph of the article:
“From the beach at a posh Bahamas hotel, Kevin O’Leary is assuring Amanda Lang, via Skype, that the Japanese earthquake and subsequent nuclear disaster – though horrific, he takes pains to point out – may be just what Japan needs for an economic turnaround. ‘I’m very bullish on nuclear right now,’ O’Leary pronounces in attire that is more beach than business. ‘It’s a buying opportunity.’”
To answer the question: No, there are no policy grounds on which the CBC should not muzzle Kevin O’Leary. Clearly, he represents a point of view held by many taxpayers.
It would be another matter if we lived in a world where aesthetic considerations determined such questions. There must be a considerable section of the CBC’s audience that considers Kevin O’Leary’s remarks on being “bullish on nuclear right now” profoundly offensive because the remarks are in atrocious taste, even if there are probably many on Bay Street and Wall Street who agree with him.
Aesthetic considerations have two elements:
(1) It is not easy to define good and bad taste;
(2) Bad taste is good box office.
As to (1), in the context under discussion one might take the view that any statement that does not take into account human suffering is in bad taste.
As to (2), this is one of the many characteristics of homo sapiens that makes the species more entertaining than most other creatures. However, the fact that the devil usually has the best lines – in Faust, for example – does not give him the right to demand prime time on public radio and television.
Eric Koch’s new book, The Golden Years: Five Stories, was launched on Saturday, March 16. The book is available from the 
Do any of us have the right to demand prime time on public radio and television? No.
But audiences should demand that no-one be excluded, so long as the broadcaster can find a way to present a fully balanced diet of voices, and expose viewers and listeners to as many different perspectives, ideas and experiences as possible, so we can examine our own thoughts and experiences in response to what we hear and see.
Audiences deserve exposure to Kevin O’Leary, Jean Vanier, Mel Watkins, Rob Ford, Lillian Allen, Max Allen, Margaret Atwood, a prairie farmer’s wife and an Inuit elder equally. Finding the right mix of inclusivity, in appropriate, serious (and engaging) journalistic/creative/aesthetic/ packaging is the public broadcaster’s big challenge.
Amen
Even fairy tale authors understand the emtertainment value of bad behaviour –how we love to witness the big bad wolf, the wicked witch, and the cruel dwarf in action. Does this perhaps explain why we never tire of watching other people’s children have meltdowns on Supernann? As long as we aren’t too close to the earsplitting screams, we can comfortably await the dea ex machina to work her magic to soothe and instruct.
The balance sought between bad boy Kevin O’Leary and his counterparts on the left is elusive precisely because extreme right wing views come across as rude, mean-spirited and just plain inhumane. The leftiest lefties can’t compete for outrageousness — their forays will always lack lustre. The depths of O’Leary’s insensitivity is the very antithesis of good taste . It may be hard to define — but we sure know when it is absent.
Let us admit it – we love bad taste.
I don’t like him. Therefore, he should go!
Sorry, you are no longer in charge.
I don’t like him either but what does being bullish on nuclear have to do with any of this?
I’ve read that the potential damage from the destruction of nuclear power plants by the tsunami that followed the earthquake is minimal compared with the rest of the destruction derived from the same natural disaster, and that the potential for fallout to spread eastward (i.e., toward the hallowed West) is also minimal. I don’t claim to know about any of this from my own technical mastery. I do, however, have the impression that there’s more than one reasonable scientific opinion about the future role of nuclear power in meeting, in a sustainable fashion, the burgeoning energy needs of a growing and gadget-hungry world population.
Ignorant, knee-jerk antipathy toward nuclear power fuzzifies the discussion. We need some light to go with the heat.
Past screw-ups in the nuclear-power field, whether intentional or unintentional, are to be regretted – and to the extent possible should be fixed. But consideration of possible nuclear futures ought not to be banned on the basis of ill thought-out calculations of comparative risks.
I would argue that one of the most serious drawbacks of democracy is that most human beings are ill equipped to assess comparative risks in an informed and dispassionate way (including me a lot of the time). The vote-getting solution to all issues of unfortunate and undesirable occurrences is to promise to eliminate any possibility of a repetition (even if such a promise cannot possibly be kept).
Arguments along the lines of “you cannot possibly put a value on a human life, therefore no-one may allow any human life to be lost, no matter the cost of maintaining it” are totally unreasonable. In fact, human life is valued implicitly all the time in terms of what society is prepared to pay to reduce or eliminate risk.
If human beings were really serious about conserving human life they would pay less attention to nuclear meltdowns and more to automobile fatalities (or gun deaths in the USA), not to mention alcohol and other drugs, the world-wide trade in small arms, etc., etc.
We live in interlocking networks of complex systems. Hubris in such circumstances regularly demonstrates its shortcomings. I think David Brooks is right when he advocates humility, modesty and tentativeness in embracing bold initiatives to ameliorate the human condition.
Nevertheless, we’ll be going to hell in a handbasket anyway if we just freeze and stick our thumbs in our mouths (or some other orifice).
Admittedly, being bullish on nuclear power is in bad taste only if the manner in which the opinion is expressed suggested insensitity towards the suffering in Japan. This may not have been the case. In any case, the remark may very well be a bad example of Kevin O’Leary’s “outrageousness”.
As to the merits of nuclear power, we should note that all political parties in Germnany have agreed to abandon its production: there is disagreement only about the time-table. (About 30% (????) of Germany’s power is nuclear, at the moment, in contrast to 80% in France). No doubt there is no unanimity on the subject among experts, but those who believe that the dangers are relatively tolerable have not prevailed. Which, of course, does not mean they are wrong. But they have not been able to persuade even the governing conservatives.
At the risk of inconveniencing that moribund equine one more time, a mild footnote: O’ Leary is far from being the only voice suggesting that the earthquake/tsunami/nuclear woes created a “buying opportunity”. As soon as the earthquake/tsunami story broke, all the mainstream media were including in their reportage various guestimates of the economic implications, effects on stock markets, etc. Once the nuclear dimension entered the story, our own hallowed(?) CBC noted that mining stocks on the TSE with interests in uranium had taken a big hit, and it didn’t take the talking heads long to suggest that there was money to be made by taking advantage of the suddenly depressed prices. One may disapprove of some people scurrying to profit from other people’s misery, but there’s nothing new about it. I didn’t hear O’Leary’s remark, so maybe the brouhaha is about the tone, or context, rather than the literal content.
“…those who believe that the dangers are relatively tolerable have not prevailed.”
Well, perhaps not in Germany at this very moment of alarm, but the world picture suggests otherwise. According to the Nuclear Energy Institute, there were, as of three and a half weeks ago, some 443 nuclear power plants operating in 29 countries and generating about a seventh of the world’s electricity. Eleven more countries have plans to build nuclear power stations, and a further six propose to do so.
Among the countries with the world’s top twenty economies (and a very great preponderance of the global population), only Italy (none built, ten proposed) and Australia (none built or proposed) seem not to have accepted (yet) that the dangers of nuclear power generation are tolerable.
Sorry, that “Anonymous” was me. I may have had a hasty finger on the “post comment” button, but I have no need to hide. [Refers to Fred's comment three minutes ago, since "fixed" by invisible hands.]
Excellent comment. I am glad you were not anonymous for long.
“audiences should demand that no-one be excluded, so long as the broadcaster can find a way to present a fully balanced diet of voices” – I whole heartedly agree with this, it is “public” broadcasting afterall…