# Kevin 0'leary Leaves CBC



## Belguy (May 24, 2010)

Kevin O'Leary is leaving the CBC and the Lang and O'Leary Report to join CTV as a financial commentator. Amanda Lang will stay with the CBC and be host of a new show starting this fall. It means that Lang and O'Leary with no longer be a team on TV.

Does this news make you feel sad?


----------



## KaeJS (Sep 28, 2010)

As long as Lang is still going to be on air, I think I am okay.

each: :biggrin:


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

I am not surprised at all.
The writing has been on the wall for a while.

Yes, it does make me sad.
With KOL leaving, the last remaining common sense financial commentator on the CBC is gone.
All that is left is a radically left wing, social welfare, big govt. cheering media, epitomized by the pretty Amanda Lang.
Her minions comprise of other left wing radicals like Armine Yalnizyan, Adam Weir, Jim Stanford, etc.

The CBC was always a big govt., social welfare mouthpiece, and now it is firmly confirmed to be so.

As for the LOLX show, I have said on the forum several times that the show has become insipid and irrelevant for many months now (ever since KOL stopped appearing on a regular basis).
I feel my time will be better invested elsewhere.
I suppose tonight will be my last viewing of the LOLX, if KOL shows up for 1 final goodbye episode.


----------



## BoringInvestor (Sep 12, 2013)

HaroldCrump said:


> With KOL leaving, the last remaining common sense financial commentator on the CBC is gone.
> All that is left is a radically left wing, social welfare, big govt. cheering media, epitomized by the pretty Amanda Lang.
> Her minions comprise of other left wing radicals like Armine Yalnizyan, Adam Weir, Jim Stanford, etc.


Who, in the Canadian media, would you describe as:
a) left-wing
b) central
c) right-wing
d) radical right-wing?


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

BoringInvestor said:


> Who, in the Canadian media, would you describe as:


I named them above in the post you quoted.
I was speaking of the CBC shows only.


----------



## peterk (May 16, 2010)

KaeJS said:


> As long as Lang is still going to be on air, I think I am okay.
> 
> each: :biggrin:


Come one KaeJS, she's 43. :rolleyes2:


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

peterk said:


> Come one KaeJS, she's 43.


From KaeJS's perspective, that's precisely the point ;o)


----------



## Toronto.gal (Jan 8, 2010)

KaeJS said:


> As long as Lang is still going to be on air, I think I am okay.
> 
> each: :biggrin:


Pas moi, so I won't be watching any more. 

+1 to HC's post #3 & Pluto's #9!

Was not in the least surprised, considering he earlier left Dragons' Den as well.


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

the dynamics between those two were entertaining and sometimes informative. I suspect her ratings will fall.


----------



## KaeJS (Sep 28, 2010)

HaroldCrump said:


> From KaeJS's perspective, that's precisely the point ;o)


Ha! Definitely part of the point, HC.

In all seriousness, though. I will not watch the show, and I do like O'Leary. He's a bit of a rude guy and sometimes I feel he is a big puppet, but he is very smart.


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

Pluto said:


> the dynamics between those two were entertaining and sometimes informative. I suspect her ratings will fall.


The show is already deadbeat.
From the news release, it seems that the show is being entirely decommissioned at the end of this month, and Ms. Lang will begin a net new show (I couldn't find any details on it, though).

I have watched a few short programs produced and hosted by Amanda Lang on her own (such as that _markets are rigged_ short film), and they pale in comparison to the version of LOLX hosted by KOL & Lang together.

To be noted is that prior to 2009, Amanda Lang used to host the ROB show but it did not really take off until KOL joined.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

HaroldCrump said:


> ... With KOL leaving, the last remaining common sense financial commentator on the CBC is gone...


Interesting ... the few times I watched, what KOL had to say was a waste of time.


Cheers


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

Eclectic12 said:


> Interesting ... the few times I watched, what KOL had to say was a waste of time.


That is a matter of personal opinion, of course.
KOL was there to express his _opinion_ - he was not a news anchor.


----------



## doctrine (Sep 30, 2011)

I was a huge fan of Lang and O'Leary Exchange. O'Leary can be polarizing but that makes good television. Ever watch the show with one of O'Leary's stand ins? The dynamic is entirely different and far less engaging. 

A big loss for CBC News Network in particular. A gain for BNN - I will definitely be tuning in to see him. 

Good to see him staying on Canadian television too - he could probably go 100% US now with the success of Shark Tank. It's in its 6th season, and every single season has had higher ratings than the previous one.


----------



## wendi1 (Oct 2, 2013)

I won't be following him around - I disliked him, not because of his very predictable and uninteresting opinions, but because of his meanness and ad hominem attacks. 

I would change channels to avoid him, and that goes for all the silly programs he was on. For the record, I also change channels whenever two people start shouting at each other. Getting old, I suppose.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

HaroldCrump said:


> That is a matter of personal opinion, of course.


Isn't it always? :biggrin:




HaroldCrump said:


> KOL was there to express his _opinion_ - he was not a news anchor.


Waste of time is waste of time - whether it's fact, opinion or outright silliness.


Cheers


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

wendi1 said:


> I won't be following him around - I disliked him, not because of his very predictable and uninteresting opinions, but because of his meanness and ad hominem attacks.


I considered him a pompous *** and avoided him too. Just my personal opinion as well.....


----------



## nobleea (Oct 11, 2013)

Never watched the show, so I don't know.
But from what I've read about him, he sounds pretty incompetent as a businessman.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/repo...just-plays-one-on-tv/article4564334/?page=all


----------



## BoringInvestor (Sep 12, 2013)

HaroldCrump said:


> I named them above in the post you quoted.
> I was speaking of the CBC shows only.


Yes, you named everyone as a left-wing radical. 
I was asking to know who you consider more moderate/right-wing radical.

Where would you put KOL in your scale?


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

I have no idea why people think KO'L is intelligent (or that he plays an intelligent character on LOLX). He just parrots a few talking points. Seems people like him because he's a conservative voice, not because he is a intelligent guy. Jack Mintz would be an example of an intelligent conservative voice. Not nearly exciting enough for infotainment business news.

KOL/LOLX is a waste of time unless you want Jim Cramer-esque game show type content.


----------



## coptzr (Jan 18, 2013)

Won't miss him. The wannabe big money makers laugh and cheer him on, but I've seen much nicer, intelligently spoken, and giving business people. He's attitude belonged with CBC "we want everything" and "I can yell my obnoxious opinion and you have to listen". I think him and Don Cherry deserve eachother. The real big nasty dogs would scare the sh!t out of KOL, and the nice ones who turn to philanthropy work would make him feel pretty small.

I like my money but don't want to be remembered as a dick my whole life.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The show did sort of turn into a love fest for Liberals.............

Kevin was often the only dissenting voice, albeit a little wild eyed and wooly at times.

I like to listen to intelligent conversations/debates from both sides of a question........but that is almost impossible to find today with the right wing and left wing media divisions.

When we don't hear both sides.............we are all worse off for it.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

andrewf said:


> I have no idea why people think KO'L is intelligent (or that he plays an intelligent character on LOLX). He just parrots a few talking points. Seems people like him because he's a conservative voice, not because he is a intelligent guy. Jack Mintz would be an example of an intelligent conservative voice. Not nearly exciting enough for infotainment business news.
> 
> KOL/LOLX is a waste of time unless you want Jim Cramer-esque game show type content.


I think Kevin brings the colour, Lang is clearly intelligent. 

Personally when I wanted intelligent, multiple perspective talk, I'd watch Michael Coren, who is well informed, intelligent, and a good moderator.

That being said, I don't watch TV anyway, it's a waste of time IMO.


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

The LOLX has been re-branded _The Exchange_ starting from this evening's show.

It's now being hosted fairly regularly by Danielle Bochove, who is IMHO a far (far) better financial journalist than Amanda Lang (with apologies to KaeJS, sorry).
Unlike Amanda, she has had real training in finance and has deep understanding of international finance, currencies, derivatives, etc.
It does not usually show through during dumbed-down news reporting like on the CBC, but every now and then while hosting the LOLX, you can tell that she knows what she's talking about.


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

BoringInvestor said:


> I was asking to know who you consider more moderate.


You'd be hard pressed to find the CBC providing any significant air-time to any such folks.
Staying within the context of the LOLX, there are Bill Robson and Goldy Hyder, but all they get are barely 3 minutes of panel discussion once a week, at most.
I also consider some of the other co-hosts like David Kaufman, Dean Orrico, and Som Seif apolitical and balanced in their opinions, but often on the right of Amanda Lang in terms of their views.

My suggestion for the LOLX show would be to reduce it to 30 mins. and hosted by Danielle Bochove, with a rotating co-host chosen from among David Kaufman, Dean Orrico, Som Seif, and David Chilton.

Cut out all the pre-recorded, boring, irrelevant interviews, cut out the stupid _Priceless Moment_ and right-size the show down to _The Big 5_, _By the Numbers_, _World Wrap_, and the 30 sec. _Other Business Headlines_.

And yes, lose that Rudyard Kipling and Sellery Salad clown characters, too.


----------



## doctrine (Sep 30, 2011)

I agree. I hated the pre-recorded interviews. I would skip most of them. I did like the in-studio interviews. Really, I just wanted to see interesting questions from K&L from both sides to whomever it was. Perhaps the show just wasn't a big enough draw for those in-studio interviews anymore.

I think the amount of pre-recorded interviews was perhaps foretelling in this case.


----------



## Karlhungus (Oct 4, 2013)

MrMatt said:


> I think Kevin brings the colour, Lang is clearly intelligent.
> 
> Personally when I wanted intelligent, multiple perspective talk, I'd watch Michael Coren, who is well informed, intelligent, and a good moderator.
> 
> That being said, I don't watch TV anyway, it's a waste of time IMO.


Oh the irony of this post. Your commenting on a thread about a tv show, I think that's the definition of wasting time.


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

I record LOLX every day at 4pm and I watch it next morning at around 6:30. On Mondays I watch John Oliver instead. I respect Bochove but miss Lang. But I will probably continue to watch it because it is a handy summary of the highlights.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

Belguy said:


> Kevin O'Leary is leaving the CBC and the Lang and O'Leary Report to join CTV as a financial commentator. Amanda Lang will stay with the CBC and be host of a new show starting this fall. It means that Lang and O'Leary with no longer be a team on TV.
> 
> Does this news make you feel sad?


Why should it? 

He is an outspoken opinionated financial type that has gained notoriety with the CBC on DD..most of his stuff is "claptrap", but entertaining "claptrap" espescially when he says to the potential investor..

"They (the big guys) will squeeze your head like a cockroach!"

Very encouraging remarks (NOT).


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

HaroldCrump said:


> You'd be hard pressed to find the CBC providing any significant air-time to any such folks.
> Staying within the context of the LOLX, there are Bill Robson and Goldy Hyder, but all they get are barely 3 minutes of panel discussion once a week, at most.
> I also consider some of the other co-hosts like David Kaufman, Dean Orrico, and Som Seif apolitical and balanced in their opinions, but often on the right of Amanda Lang in terms of their views.


 Cut out a lot of it..most of it is boring.. I remember watching on the US channels a few years ago.. MAD MONEY with this self made fast talking stock market "investor/millionaire" (Jim Cramer) hosting the interactive 1/2 hour show where "investors" call in asking about their stock.
You get all the hoopla + all the bells and whistles.,..the clanging of the stock market bell. the bull market mooing and the bear market growls..entertaining but don't commit your life savings on his advice alone..and he does mention that in his disclaimer.


----------



## donald (Apr 18, 2011)

Agree on rudyard,not sure who does the hiring but he is awful when he steps in from time to time,that guy also has to be about the worst dresser on national T.V
I suspect the 'Tv' kevin and the 'real' Kevin are two different people.Kevin took a page from trump(canadian version)it gets eyeballs on him(smart is show biz)takes a certain swagger to pull that off a Kevin possess that.
Like somewhat said up thread the writing was on the wall(it was easy to tell kevin was moving imo when he was/is becoming a regular on cnbc etc


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

wendi1 said:


> I won't be following him around - I disliked him, not because of his very predictable and uninteresting opinions, but because of his meanness and ad hominem attacks.
> 
> I would change channels to avoid him, and that goes for all the silly programs he was on. For the record, I also change channels whenever two people start shouting at each other. Getting old, I suppose.


I'm of the same mindset. 
Even though he is successful with his O'Leary Funds, he is rude and overbearing and very opinionated trying to convince others that only his opinions count. I saw that in DD. 

He would throw out a ridiculous offer wanting 51% and royalties on the products they were pitching,
or just insult them if they didn't jump at "his offer" and sometimes just insult them, 
argue with the other Dragons, talk down to Arlene, the only woman on the show, 
and in general just be a clown/nuisance, since most people decide immediately,
it was probably best for them not to deal with him.

It seems that CBC kept him for the bizarre entertainment value that the show was mostly. 
DD seemed to offer lots of sex appeal and amusing routines..but very rarely any serious products.
However, he was definitely toned down a lot on Shark Tank. I don't think that American TV
would put up with his antics like CBC did, and maybe he was more concerned about his reputation in the US.

At least the other Dragons, Jim, Arlene, David Chilton (Wealthy Barber) and Robert seemed at least halfway serious about investing, but in the last season, it seemed like it had turned into a 3 ring circus. 


Imagine working for him and experiencing his "other side"? Especially if the results is not what he is expecting?
Paraphrasing what he would say on DD; " I would "squash you like a bug that you are!'


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

His persona on DD is definitely for the sake of TV entertainment.
He freely admits that.
In his first book, he recounts the series of incidents leading up to projecting that kind of behavior.
During the filming of the very first season (he is one of the original Dragons), he was harsh to one of the pitchers.
After the cameras stopped rolling, the show producer came up to him and said they loved it, just keep doing what you did. We need more of that.

I don't see his behavior on DD any different than some of these hitherto unknown chefs on the zillions of cooking shows that have started up in the last 5 years.
In fact, some of those chefs are far more rude to the participants than KOL is on DD.
It is all cheap TV entertainment.

He is far more serious on LOLX, or at least used to be.
I have been watching LOLX since 2010 and the original format of the show was far more conducive to meaningful discussion.
In the last year & bit, the show has lost its way.

Lastly, some of his behavior on the LOLX was in response towards Amanda Lang's out & out radical liberalism.
Her literally non-stop harping on her pet peeves such as corporate taxes, income inequality, collective bargaining, and a few more.
Some of the things he said and attitudes he took was no doubt in defiance of Amanda's equally extreme views.
The reason most viewers give a pass to Amanda is because she is pretty...that's all


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

carverman said:


> ... Even though he is successful with his O'Leary Funds, ...


If you mean successful in the sense of making money for himself/management team instead of his investors ... that seems reasonable.

If you mean his funds are making money ... I'm curious as to the source?

The article quoted upthread highlighted the contrast between his claim of not paying RoC and the analysis of the books showing he is paying RoC.

The article link below talks about how it appears that in 2012, 20% of total assets were either redeemed or distributed during the same year that only money market and pure equity MFs were experiencing net redemptions. 

The result is the disparity of -20% for KOL funds versus +9% for the MFs as a whole.
It may be a bigger differential as it appears most of the KOL funds are of the type that were the strongest gainers for that year.

http://www.wellingtonfund.com/blog/...-240-million-of-assets-in-2012/#axzz3AMqrDarc


If I'm reading the article correctly, 2012 made three straight years of redemptions after spectacular early sales.


Cheers


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

HaroldCrump said:


> His persona on DD is definitely for the sake of TV entertainment.
> He freely admits that.


Yes. I understand that Harold, but on some DD shows it would seem he pushed it a bit "too far".
Imagine him joining CMF and commenting in the same manner here?
..why..the "financial gurus" of this fine online forum and perhaps some of the other "hang-around-types-for-the-entertainment-value" would be screaming..BAN "Kevin!" or <whatever online persona he chose to subscribe>; and there would be such an uproar from
the "namby-pambys" that frequent this forum.



> I don't see his behavior on DD any different than some of these hitherto unknown chefs on the zillions of cooking shows that have started up in the last 5 years.
> In fact, some of those chefs are far more rude to the participants than KOL is on DD.
> It is all cheap TV entertainment.


I didn't see that in the Masterchef Canada cooking show though..the master chefs are very polite to the contestants, even
if they find fault in their style of cooking specific dishes as required. One Chinese chef was "abrupt" in his speaking manner,
but that may be just his style as he is a man of few words..as they say. 



> He is far more serious on LOLX, or at least used to be.
> I have been watching LOLX since 2010 and the original format of the show was far more conducive to meaningful discussion.
> In the last year & bit, the show has lost its way.


I used to watch that show and although some of the different views was interesting, it was clear towards the end that
he had a dislike for her views and in cases he deliberately chose to be condescending to her. 



> Lastly, some of his behavior on the LOLX was in response towards Amanda Lang's out & out radical liberalism.
> Her literally non-stop harping on her pet peeves such as corporate taxes, income inequality, collective bargaining, and a few more.
> Some of the things he said and attitudes he took was no doubt in defiance of Amanda's equally extreme views.
> The reason most viewers give a pass to Amanda is because she is pretty...that's all


Well that was her side of things. She is pretty and eye candy after all..and even if she is 43 (or whatever) in this "old coot's"
eyes, she is a "Young attractive babe'..like Diane Buckner on DD that sometimes hosted LOLX when Amanda was away.
There is another young babe that sometimes subs for Amanda..forget her name..she seems to be able to hold her own
even when Kevin goes into his opinionated rants sometimes. Yes, I know he is successful..but that is not an excuse to
act like an A**hole some of the time, at least on DD or LOLX.:biggrin:


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

carverman said:


> like Diane Buckner on DD that sometimes hosted LOLX when Amanda was away


IMHO, Diane Bucker should not be hosting the LOLX, it is way beyond her "core competency", shall we say politely.
She should stick to the DD.

She was also the host on that infamous episode where KOL called Chris Hedges - a Pulitzer Prize winning author and activist - a "left wing nutbar".
I watched that show, and she just sat there with her mouth open and did not intervene, and allowed the conversation to go downhill fast.

If you ask me, _that_ was the turning point for this nice business show.
Something snapped that day, it was never the same again.
I suspect that episode marked the beginning of the rift between the CBC and KOL.



> There is another young babe that sometimes subs for Amanda..forget her name..she seems to be able to hold her own
> even when Kevin goes into his opinionated rants sometimes.


Do you mean Danielle Bochove?
I referred to her in my posts above.
IMHO, she is a far better financial journalist than Amanda Lang.
But...only you could consider her a "young babe" :biggrin:


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

carverman said:


> Even though he is successful with his O'Leary Funds


What does that mean? How do you define success?


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

HaroldCrump said:


> He is far more serious on LOLX, or at least used to be.
> I have been watching LOLX since 2010 and the original format of the show was far more conducive to meaningful discussion.
> In the last year & bit, the show has lost its way.


My guess is that KO left DD on his own but was forced out of LOLX because of his lack of contribution. While I agree with some of his opinions (botched government interference in in telecom as one example). he shared few insights in latter shows and I was glad when some less newsworthy stand-ins took his place. Even on Shark Tank, it is fun to see him outmaneuvered by a basketball team owner! I feel sorry for any entrepreneur who takes any of his offers.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

HaroldCrump said:


> IMHO, Diane Bucker should not be hosting the LOLX, it is way beyond her "core competency", shall we say politely.
> She should stick to the DD.


She's just an attractive TV show host. I wasn't implying she was qualified for interceding (if need be), and making informed comments on important things of a financial nature. :biggrin:



> She was also the host on that infamous episode where KOL called Chris Hedges - a Pulitzer Prize winning author and activist - a "left wing nutbar".
> I watched that show, and she just sat there with her mouth open and did not intervene, and allowed the conversation to go downhill fast.


Missed that episode with the nutbar...but she was only a fill in for AL. Probably she was so overwhelmed 
with the spewing going on that she forgot to intervene and tell them " ok then! moving on now!"



> If you ask me, _that_ was the turning point for this nice business show.
> Something snapped that day, it was never the same again.
> 
> I suspect that episode marked the beginning of the rift between the CBC and KOL.


Not surprised.
Didn't KOL host some kind of strange "rags to riches" short lived series called Redemption INC?
Where he set up some kind of plan and tasked "selected losers of society ", such as former cons, drug addicts, gamblers, bankruptcies, to follow his prescribed methods and report back to him, on the show of course.
He would ask them how they were making out with the tasks handed to them. 

Show flopped, because you can't turn a known habitual drug user or a ex-con, gambler etc, and turn them into a financial tycoons.
I suppose It IS possible in *very few and select cases* , but maybe it was another attempt by CBC to find some kind of alternative for him at the time as he was (probably) wanting to move on from DD..
and he and Robert Herjavic migrated over to Shark Tank. 




> Do you mean Danielle Bochove?
> I referred to her in my posts above.
> IMHO, she is a far better financial journalist than Amanda Lang.
> But...only you could consider her a "young babe" :biggrin:


Yes, that cutsy! Harold..anyone 20 years younger than me, sporting a full set of pearly whites..is a "babe" in my book. :biggrin:


----------



## warp (Sep 4, 2010)

I stumbled onto this thread sort of by accident.

However, I will say one thing, I have watched the show on occasion, and I always noted that Amanda Lang would constatly interrupt O'leary to make some silly point. 
And I mean CONSTANTLY. 

I don't always agree with Oleary, but would at least be interested in listening to what he was saying...but over and over again Lang would just shoot off her mouth with some dumb remarks. ( remember that she is, after all, the daughter of an ex- Liberal Cabinet Minister, with some pretty silly left wing views when it comes to money, govt, etc)

At times, I was amazed that O'leary didnt just tell her to shut-up, when it was his turn to speak,,,( which is probably what I would have done).

That being said, the show has just become boring.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Kevin was the ruder of the two, it terms of talking over the other person. It's manufactured conflict, made for TV.


----------



## doctrine (Sep 30, 2011)

I've seen a couple of interviews on BNN with Kevin O'Leary and Catherine Murray. Perhaps L&L part 2 in the making? I enjoyed the interviews for what it's worth, and hope to see more of them in the future.


----------



## mrPPincer (Nov 21, 2011)

^ to andrew's point above, 
exactly, Kevin had 3 or 4 talking points that he would fall back on ad nauseam; he was playing a role (the wicked witch of the west that everybody loves to hate) and only on the rare occasion would he offer any potentially new insights.
I think he was bored with his same old rhetoric; I certainly was.

I'd much prefer to hear more of the thoughts of many of the other co-hosts, and now i will.

I like to hear Amanda Lang's thoughts as well and she asks good questions and has some great interviews; she's a great anchor.
That said, Danielle Bochove is friggin awesome and it's a real treat when she's sitting in too.


----------



## MRT (Apr 8, 2013)

andrewf said:


> Kevin was the ruder of the two, it terms of talking over the other person. It's manufactured conflict, made for TV.


of course - and it goes both ways - Amanda plays the bleeding heart liberal quite well, while Kevin is the cold-as-ice opposite. It is funny that some people assume that this stuff does not get 'massaged' by producers/directors. Yes, they want some integrity left over, but a 100% serious business show isn't going to attract the same viewership as a mostly-serious business show with a fair helping of over-the-top partisan banter. 

I enjoy Amanda quite a bit, and it is easy enough to see when Kevin is being serious and when he is playing it up. 

On Dragon's Den, it is even more manufactured. We see this with EVERY long-running show. The first season or two (if you are lucky) is the bare bones product, but then the directors/producers play up what 'works' in their opinion.

Compare the first season of Masterchef, Kitchen Nightmares or any such 'reality' show...then look at the more recent seasons. Night and day. We see it with sitcoms too, as evidenced by how the personalities grow and evolve - look at season one of Family Guy vs. now. Again, night and day.


----------



## stardancer (Apr 26, 2009)

I rate myself as slightly above average in financial savvy. If I watch financial shows, I like to learn things. Stopped watching LOLX for the reason that I learned nothing. If Kevin was away and one of the fill-ins was on, I would watch because they actually had something to say. Didn't mind Amanda, but felt she was playing a role in bantering with Kevin; she didn't do that with the other co-hosts. Still like DD but cringed every time Kevin opened his mouth, because he became such a fool.


----------



## OurBigFatWallet (Jan 20, 2014)

stardancer said:


> I rate myself as slightly above average in financial savvy. If I watch financial shows, I like to learn things. Stopped watching LOLX for the reason that I learned nothing. If Kevin was away and one of the fill-ins was on, I would watch because they actually had something to say. Didn't mind Amanda, but felt she was playing a role in bantering with Kevin; she didn't do that with the other co-hosts. Still like DD but cringed every time Kevin opened his mouth, because he became such a fool.


I agree. I think his ego has become bigger and bigger as he has gained more media exposure. I don't think he has ever come across a camera he didn't like


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

Although I don't agree with everything he says, his perspective is a breath of fresh air on many occasions. He doesn't buy into assumptions of global warming alarmists, and feminist sophistry. That's a relief. He doesn't buy into the assumption that we require an ever expanding social welfare nanny state. Thank God. On the negative side, he seems to have a little to much faith in unfettered capitalist greed. But I over look that due to his other refreshing beliefs. I fear unfettered capitalism as much as I fear an unfettered nanny state. Many of you have probably heard of the alleged Churchill quote that goes something like: - "If you aren't a liberal when you are young, you don't have a heart; and if you aren't conservative when you are old, you don't have a brain."


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

Somebody had to balance out Amanda Lang's outlandish liberal/nanny state views.
Like how we need aggressive progressive taxation to ensure "social justice".
Like how we must implement even more "re-distribution of income" to ensure social justice.

How we must "punish" all the banks and financial institutions for the 2008 crisis.
and how Obama is doing such a great job at indicting and sending those same bank executives to jail (NOT !)

The LOLX show had become a pathetic parade of income inequality and re-distribution rhetoric.
That, and Amanda Lang's personally hand-picked "innovation" ideas :rolleyes2:


----------



## peterk (May 16, 2010)

Well put, Pluto. Although I think I fear the nanny state more, if only slightly.



Pluto said:


> I fear unfettered capitalism as much as I fear an unfettered nanny state.


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

It seems as if Rudyard Griffiths is the new co-chair. While he makes insightful comments, with co-chair Dianne Buckner, it seems to be very dull. The writers must be the same so I guess it is in her delivery?


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

Yup, that is the worst possible combination.
Dianne Bucker (no disrespect) should stick to hosting the Dragon's Den.
She is not a financial reporter/journalist.

In fact, IMHO, Danielle Bochove is the best finance journalist the CBC has - better than Amanda Lang.

As for the Rudyard Kipling character...my eyes are hurting from the blue jackets and the pink ties :rolleyes2:

The only LOLX (now called LX - Lang Exchange) hosts I can stand for are Danielle Bochove with David Kaufman or David Chilton (wealthy barber guy)


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

I think a lot of the show is unscripted, in particular the banter between the two hosts.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The CBC should start a business channel.......or maybe change the "all news" channel to a business format.

As it is..........the CBC is trying to be the proverbial "jack of all trades.......master of none".

Revenue from a CBC business channel should be healthy enough to sustain the low cost it would involve.

CBC Radio has 3 English speaking networks with talk and music........but not much business news.

They could change one of those too.........while they are at it..........simply carry the audio feed from the business channel, like CNBC and CNN do on satellite radio.


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

You are spot on, sags.
However, I suspect there is no funding available to the CBC to even think about it.
It costs a lot of money to start up and operate a good financial news channel, let alone hire quality financial journalists.
CBC does not have any money.


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

The Exchange unveiled a new format yesterday. It lacked punch. One main "highlight" was a black & white segment of Amanda hosting a table of guests. Pretty ugly!


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

This so-called "Exchange" has now become a full-on narcissistic fest for Ms. Lang.

During the KOL days, I felt the news analysis (if it can be called that) was fairly balanced.
He got replaced with cardboard characters like Mr. Red Pants and Mr. Salad Sellery, who Amanda could easily run over and dominate.

With this new format, she has completely done away with any form of discussion, debate, or counter opinions.
Even Mr. Red Pants showed for barely 5 secs. towards the end.

But the most shocking part was the opening segment with Evan Solomon.
It was an open, full-on campaign ad for the Liberal Party.
The CBC and the 2 anchors (Amanda & Solomon) made no secret of their political colors.

I am wondering whether this show will now become a pseudo propaganda rhetoric for the Liberal party during the entire next year.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

I feel like I have to watch this now to see how closely Harold's perception matches reality.


----------



## mrPPincer (Nov 21, 2011)

andrewf said:


> I feel like I have to watch this now to see how closely Harold's perception matches reality.


http://www.cbc.ca/player/Shows/Shows/The+Exchange+with+Amanda+Lang/ID/2564467045/
^Monday's show in the new format


----------



## 1980z28 (Mar 4, 2010)

HaroldCrump said:


> This so-called "Exchange" has now become a full-on narcissistic fest for Ms. Lang.
> 
> During the KOL days, I felt the news analysis (if it can be called that) was fairly balanced.
> He got replaced with cardboard characters like Mr. Red Pants and Mr. Salad Sellery, who Amanda could easily run over and dominate.
> ...


Have watch for years

Kevin provided my evening comedy,I really miss it

Not watching much anymore,maybe part of an episode per week


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

It is only a matter of time..with continuing funding cuts, any half hour segments still being produced may be in their last season.


> The ex-board members, who include a former chairwoman as well as the CBC’s previous president, said the broadcaster, which is mandated by the 1991 Broadcasting Act, would likely die without more support.





> In a town hall last month, CBC executives informed staff that the broadcaster would cease almost all in-house production, with the exception of radio, and news and current affairs. The shows on the prime-time schedule of its English-language TV network are already produced by private companies. It will now no longer produce its own documentaries.


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/arts...sed-former-board-members-say/article19613536/

If the above is true, within the next 5 years, this could be a reality, with the CBC having only radio and some news, but other than that just a lot of reruns and children's shows..so how much advertising revenue will that attract? 

If they are already at 130 million shortfall this year, and further funding cuts and layoffs keep occurring..eventually, it may be just become a shell of it's former self which at one time was Canada's primary network for news and entertainment.
CTV will take over, just like Rogers getting control of HNIC. 

Will the Harper gov't or any future gov't step up to the plate to replace the funding shortfalls..I somehow doubt it.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

1980z28 said:


> Kevin provided my evening comedy,I really miss it
> 
> Not watching much anymore,maybe part of an episode per week


I suspect a lot of people will do the same..stop watching it. 

Like him or not.."Mr. Wonderful" doing critique on Ms Lang's statements and their banter/difference of opinion..provided some entertainment on that show. 

The same with DD, even with the two new Dragons, so far it seems to be very subdued...the entertainment part of the show isn't there like it was in previous seasons. Depending on it's ratings and funding..
will these shows survive past the current season?


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

andrewf said:


> I feel like I have to watch this now to see how closely Harold's perception matches reality.


Sure, the show is available online...watch it and let me know whether it is a _full-on narcissistic fest_ or not.
Kinda like Jim Cramer's _Mad Money_, sans the screaming, the stomping, and the thumping, of course.


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

and yes +1 to kcowan's comment too...I completely miss the point of the B&W segment.
It basically portrays Amanda at the head of a large conference room table - like a CEO "brainstorming" with her minions.


----------



## Toronto.gal (Jan 8, 2010)

andrewf said:


> I feel like I have to watch this now to see *how closely Harold's perception matches reality*.


IMHO, matches reality perfectly Andrewf. 

'Narcissistic fest' indeed. I stopped watching the show long ago.


----------



## Toronto.gal (Jan 8, 2010)

carverman said:


> *1.* Like him or not.."Mr. Wonderful" doing critique on Ms Lang's statements and their banter/difference of opinion..*provided some entertainment on that show.*
> *2.* The same with DD, even with the two new Dragons, so far it seems to be very subdued...*the entertainment part of the show isn't there like it was in previous seasons*.
> *3.* Depending on it's ratings and funding..*will these shows survive past the current season?*


*1.* That's primarily what it was - entertainment, that some seemed to have failed to recognize. 
*2.* We have only seen one episode with the 2 newbies, so I think we have to wait a bit 2 see how it will do.
*3.* After hockey, DD was their #1 show in ratings up to now, so I don't think the ratings will drop significantly just due to KOL's departure, at least not so immediately, but time will tell. 

DD & Murdoch Mysteries, their #3 show I think, have saved CBC for now, lol.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

I will try to check it out. I stopped watching quite a while ago. Far too infotainment-y for me. Business news should be interesting and informative first. Entertainment value is just a nice to have.


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

Late last week, Amanda made an appeal to viewers to ask questions. So far, no sign of that segment. In the B&W segment, I was unfavourably impressed with the number of people at the table. Was it for show or do we need some more staff cuts? One of the colour commentators was also a CBC staffer. I have no problem with Evan but he has his own show if I want to see him.

It is definitely a work in progress. Hopefully we will see some soon.


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

kcowan said:


> Late last week, Amanda made an appeal to viewers to ask questions. So far, no sign of that segment.


I'd guess no one sent any questions in ;o)

Do you recall the _My Money_ segment from the old, old days of the LOLX, when KOL was around?
He used to answer specific investment questions mailed in by readers.
There was also the _Inbox_ segment at the end, where Lang & KOL discussed pre-selected viewers' emails.

All those segments went away with KOL.

So this (mythical) viewers' question segment is nothing new.
However, viewership of the show has dropped off a cliff in the last 1 - 1.5 years, and I'd imagine with KOL's permanent departure from CBC, viewership of the show would be at all-time lows.



> In the B&W segment, I was unfavourably impressed with the number of people at the table.


That segment is purely a narcissistic indulgence by Amanda - she - the Queen - at the head of the table, with her minions all gathered around her, nodding and agreeing with her.


----------



## doctrine (Sep 30, 2011)

Kevin O'Leary has had at least one segment on BNN already where he took specific questions from viewers. I haven't seen the new Exchange show though. I used to seek out it when it was LoLX. I might give it a try..but not holding my breath.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

HaroldCrump said:


> Sure, the show is available online...watch it and let me know whether it is a _full-on narcissistic fest_ or not.
> Kinda like Jim Cramer's _Mad Money_, sans the screaming, the stomping, and the thumping, of course.


I think it was a bit self-indulgent and not very interesting television, but not all that bad. Not exactly Bill O'Reilly levels of narcissism. 

The B&W segment portrayed Amanda as an executive producer brainstorming topics for the show. It was contrived, but not exactly a huge stretch from what they do each day when they put the show together.

But by all means, carry on with the Amanda Lang hate club...


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

andrewf said:


> Not exactly Bill O'Reilly levels of narcissism.


How did Bill O'Reilly come into this?



> but not exactly a huge stretch from what they do each day when they put the show together.


So this is a reality show now?
Which follows the protagonist as he/she goes about his/her daily activities & job?
Like a _Real housewives of_ or a _Kardashians _episode?



> But by all means, carry on with the Amanda Lang hate club...


Moi? Hate Amanda Lang?
Oh my...you are mistaken.
I don't watch the show for its stellar investment advice :biggrin:


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

HaroldCrump said:


> So this is a reality show now?
> Which follows the protagonist as he/she goes about his/her daily activities & job?
> Like a _Real housewives of_ or a _Kardashians _episode?


What is the point of pulling a quote out of context to make it seem I said the opposite? I said it was contrived.


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

Count me in as an Amanda Lang fan and regular LOLX viewer who is not enjoying this train wreck. Aside from The National and Question Period, it was the only CBC show I watched.


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

*Kevin O'Leary has sold his O'Leary Funds to Canoe Financial* (ex Dragon Brett Wilson's company).
Funny how they are patting each other on the back now, yet I don't recall them getting along well back during their Dragon Days.


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

The performance on some of his funds is pretty damning.
The BNN video linked above showed two such funds with nearly -20% drawdowns YTD.
One of them carries an MER fee of 2.9%

KOL jumped off the sinking boat just as the market is rebounding.
He seems to have good timing...he sold the TLC company to Mattel just as it was about to crash & burn.
He also managed to quit Mattel with a golden parachute just before they started falling apart.


----------



## RBull (Jan 20, 2013)

^ KOL seems to have impeccable timing. His "winnings" though are a tiny fraction of what he makes them out to be. 

Hard to believe Brett would buy what seems to be a heck of a boat anchor.

your link is down.


----------

