Yeah, in some of those years it was far less than 70 grand and the money was distributed amongst a larger group. Once you do that, the $1.2 million doesn't seem that impressive a number.
Concerning that last remark about higher ratings, there's some truth to that, indeed. Just today I was having another look at another Canadian news item from March 2010, when Ann Coulter's speech at the University of Ottawa was canceled. Going through some of the articles I've found, I noticed one that mentioned how her "incendiary remarks" do little more than to sell more of her books. I'm not sure how far I agree with that, but I can't say it's completely false. Those more pushy and abrasive commentators usually have to sell a product, in all its forms: books, columns, corporations, news firms, etc. If that weren't the part of the case, I can't see any good convincing reasons why any stations would keep them around.
Concerning Gillis, I worry if she might be placing too heavy a burden on what art itself can do. I love art, but I think it has its limits. I need to see a very convincing argument whenever someone attributes to art a highly transformational power that can fundamentally change society. I know that's not exactly Gillis's words, but it's very similar in content to what she was saying. I can understand why she would have to use that argument, since she was being aggressively pressed to justify $1.2 million right then and there. But showing how a niche art market or group can broadly affect society requires, perhaps, more than what she offered as justification.
Last edited by Pleiades Rising at 1:07:04 AM CDT on July 9, 2011.
Like you said my friend ,it was rathe ra guide to "what not to do" in an interview . She got like 70 grand each year and that not bad for a years ernings but it's also not catastrophically high. You have expenses in the year so if you picture a person expenses over 10 years the figure will be significant.I agree,all movements were to atack and not to investigate.
Well, one thing that was obviously misleading was the way Erickson kept asking Gillis about the $1.2 million like she got it all at once, and kept it all to herself. It was also strange when she mentioned Canadian military forces in Afghanistan, even though that didn't really follow from what either of them previously said. That maneuver seemed like a move to silence and confuse Gillis. Like I said, it was a terrible interview. At times I couldn't hear what they were saying!
What an interesting article Shane:
I must agree with you that the interview was really a complete fail.You don't go over an interview to ask about expenses in a so long term, even less to just a person.Margie Gillis must be a very respected person from Canada and from what I saw she really works hard to give a great name to the country.
The persons behind the interview were not objective at all.What people wanted to know about what kind of successful programs ,how they were born and how did they thrived over the time.How those progrmas made progess on art and progress and name for the people of Canada (was left over).I bet you were not happy at all with that kind of interview,it was 0% objective my friend.
Pleiades Rising
Otaku Idol (Otaku Eternal) | Posted 07/09/11 | Reply
@AngelBest Dream:
Yeah, in some of those years it was far less than 70 grand and the money was distributed amongst a larger group. Once you do that, the $1.2 million doesn't seem that impressive a number.
Pleiades Rising
Otaku Idol (Otaku Eternal) | Posted 07/09/11 | Reply
@:
Concerning that last remark about higher ratings, there's some truth to that, indeed. Just today I was having another look at another Canadian news item from March 2010, when Ann Coulter's speech at the University of Ottawa was canceled. Going through some of the articles I've found, I noticed one that mentioned how her "incendiary remarks" do little more than to sell more of her books. I'm not sure how far I agree with that, but I can't say it's completely false. Those more pushy and abrasive commentators usually have to sell a product, in all its forms: books, columns, corporations, news firms, etc. If that weren't the part of the case, I can't see any good convincing reasons why any stations would keep them around.
Concerning Gillis, I worry if she might be placing too heavy a burden on what art itself can do. I love art, but I think it has its limits. I need to see a very convincing argument whenever someone attributes to art a highly transformational power that can fundamentally change society. I know that's not exactly Gillis's words, but it's very similar in content to what she was saying. I can understand why she would have to use that argument, since she was being aggressively pressed to justify $1.2 million right then and there. But showing how a niche art market or group can broadly affect society requires, perhaps, more than what she offered as justification.
Last edited by Pleiades Rising at 1:07:04 AM CDT on July 9, 2011.
AngelBest Dream
Holy Knight (Otaku Eternal) | Posted 07/08/11 | Reply
@Pleiades Rising:
Like you said my friend ,it was rathe ra guide to "what not to do" in an interview . She got like 70 grand each year and that not bad for a years ernings but it's also not catastrophically high. You have expenses in the year so if you picture a person expenses over 10 years the figure will be significant.I agree,all movements were to atack and not to investigate.
Angel
Pleiades Rising
Otaku Idol (Otaku Eternal) | Posted 07/07/11 | Reply
@AngelBest Dream:
Well, one thing that was obviously misleading was the way Erickson kept asking Gillis about the $1.2 million like she got it all at once, and kept it all to herself. It was also strange when she mentioned Canadian military forces in Afghanistan, even though that didn't really follow from what either of them previously said. That maneuver seemed like a move to silence and confuse Gillis. Like I said, it was a terrible interview. At times I couldn't hear what they were saying!
AngelBest Dream
Holy Knight (Otaku Eternal) | Posted 07/07/11 | Reply
What an interesting article Shane:
I must agree with you that the interview was really a complete fail.You don't go over an interview to ask about expenses in a so long term, even less to just a person.Margie Gillis must be a very respected person from Canada and from what I saw she really works hard to give a great name to the country.
The persons behind the interview were not objective at all.What people wanted to know about what kind of successful programs ,how they were born and how did they thrived over the time.How those progrmas made progess on art and progress and name for the people of Canada (was left over).I bet you were not happy at all with that kind of interview,it was 0% objective my friend.
Angel