There are two main newspapers in my area. One is considered more intellectual and one is considered more trashy/tabloidy. As it turns out, they have different biases on the issue of the disollution of the Canadian Wheat Board. The more reputable one favours the CWB and likes to say that it sympathizes with farmers. The less reputable favours the government and the "freedom of the market". This difference is both interesting and healthy for readers. They get both sides of the story if they choose to read both, and it can lead them to search into the issue more.
For myself, it cleared up some things for me. 1) It is unclear what will happen to the CWB. One newspaper said that it would be disbanded and replaced. The other said that it would stay as a voluntary option. What I learned is that I need to look this up more. 2) In times of trouble the CWB can become a whiny being. 3) I am all for farmers having options in who they sell to, aka. a crown corporation or a different corporation. Whether this is being argued or not is in question. 4) The real issue is what do the farmers want. The government is pushing, in bully-like fashion, for no CWB. The CWB is pushing for their survival, in a similar way to how some children tell the teacher whenever someone else disobeys the rules. They want the farmers to vote on whether they stay or not. And, truthfully, this sounds like the most constitutional way to do things. It also sounds like self-preservation.
Getting the farmers to vote whether barley and/or wheat should remain under CWB monopoly and going from there is idealogically the best option. It also sounds like a huge costly hassle. But so does the government and the CWB pushing each other into court. What I want to know in this debacle is are either party focusing on the benefit to and desires of farmers and the people they influence?