The Lang-O’Stanford Exchange
I was invited last week to serve as the substitute host for the indomitable Kevin O’Leary on CBC News channel’s “Lang-O’Leary Exchange.”
Amanda Lang introduced the show by saying, “Hello, I’m Amanda Lang.”
Then I said, “And I am definitely NOT Kevin O’Leary.”
And the rest was history!
Here’s the link to the full show for your amusement and edification.
It was a great experience for me, to sit in on the editorial meetings (where story ideas were selected), to be on the other side of the interviews (asking questions instead of answering them), and to see how fast-on-her-feet Amanda Lang has to be once the cameras start rolling. Guests for our show included the courageous Munir Sheikh with his thoughts on the short-form census which has just been distributed, the star and director of Chasing Madoff (the latest documentary on the financial meltdown), and Patrick Michaels of the Cato Institute who disputes UN predictions of the impacts of rising CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere. We even talked about the growing income gap in Canada and the U.S. (a topic which I’m sure would caused heart tremors in Kevin O’Leary had he actually been there that day!).
On the whole it was an eclectic and balanced show, no thanks to me (all the topics were chosen by the editorial team). Thanks to them all for the opportunity to play TV host for a day!
It would be worth a separate post to read your thoughts and critique of the editorial process; moreover, the assumptions, beliefs, world view of the editorial team in light of having O’Leary there for shock and entertainment value and to champion the idea that less or preferably no government means more freedom
I watched it and it was great! I hope they get you back for more shows as the economy declines. I thought you were holding back a bit on the income gap but I guess you didn’t want to scare them of on your first guest spot.
Comment sent to CBC:
While flipping channels, I discovered Jim Stanford on your program in place of Kevin O’Leary. It was quite a shock, somewhat akin to finding Leonardo Da Vinci replacing Neanderthal Man. I hope Stanford becomes a regular feature of your program. It would give me a good reason to follow your program more regularly, and demonstrate that your program belongs in the twenty-first century.
I have always wondered why the CBC, and other broadcasters, believe, without thought, that
BUSINESS programming is the only perspective.
In the past, I believe I remember local labour programming that was, to put it charitably, amateur.
I quite agree with Kazdan’s comment, yet cannot help believing that labour programming, along with consumer programming, and virtually any other perspective than BUSINESS, could be made at least as interesting, and help wrest control of the minds of Canadians towards the disalienated society I know I long for.
And hope the readers of these comment do, too–unless the study of the ‘laws’ of an apparently ontologically frozen society, reified into some sort of solidity, are far too distracting.
I remember a show called “Marketplace” years and years ago. The opening song went in part,
“Another sale on something, we’ll buy it while it’s hot,
And save a lot of money, spending money we don’t got.”
Not sure you could float such a program nowadays.
I liked the show but at one point I must say I thought you gave nuclear the benefit of doubt that isn’t mostly there. Nasty stuff, nuclear power, and far too expensive. And once you take into account the amount of concrete involved in the elaborate construction and the amount of fossil fuels used in the uranium mining, as with biofuels there are those who doubt it saves nearly as much carbon emission as you’d think. And really, really, really expensive–it needs huge subsidies to be remotely viable, especially when you count waste storage costs.
The subsidies, Purple Library Guy, are not only in the building and running of any nuclear hot water boiler–the plants in Fukushima are General Electric water boilers–but in the liability insurance.
No private insurer will insure a nuclear plant, unless the liability is limited by law. No money can be made otherwise.
For many year, the legal liability limit in Canada was, by legislation, $75 million. I believe Stephen Harper’s government, of course with the assistance of at least one of the previous opposition parties, extended the limit to $100 million.
Maybe if there were a containment leak at Darlington, or Gentilly, it would not cost more than $100 million.
I believe there are plans to expand the already gigantic Darlington. I also understand Darlington is on evacuation routes from Toronto.
I was in fact aware of that.
The point was worth making, but it’s vaguely annoying that the way you made it seemed as if you were talking down to me. I expect that wasn’t your intent.