• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Attitudes towards the Liberals

CBC does still criticize the government from time to time... they ensure to provide their own spin though, in this instance ensuring that they highlight how Trudeau has been friends with this individual for a long time, and that the Ethics Commissioner gave the go ahead for the trip. If CBC did not report on the story, then they would be unable to influence the narrative.

Those aren't narratives those are just "facts".

How can there not be the perception of bias in CBC's reporting when the majority of their funding comes from the federal government and their is currently a big difference between the government and opposition when it comes to continuing that support?

I've personally never claimed that the CBC isn't left biased. It assuredly is. However, it is a big step to go from "left biased" or even "staffed by people who have a personal affinity for the LPC" to being an organization that is patently "Trudeau Propoganda".

Do you think the China Central Television would ever publish/air a story about Xi similar to the story CBC ran about Trudeau quoted above?
 
I have been guilty of that before. And the reason is that using alternate sources will get your input discarded, on these forums, from our more left leaning brothers and sisters.
It's one thing to site articles/news stories from sources that are right-leaning. It's another to site articles/news stories from sites that are not only right-leaning, but also who have a history of providing information that is selective, incomplete, unfair, misleading, inaccurate, or even fabricated, and that includes "opinion" pieces being carefully curated to appear as actual news.
 
It's one thing to site articles/news stories from sources that are right-leaning. It's another to site articles/news stories from sites that are not only right-leaning, but also who have a history of providing information that is selective, incomplete, unfair, misleading, inaccurate, or even fabricated, and that includes "opinion" pieces being carefully curated to appear as actual news.

If you say so.
 
I've personally never claimed that the CBC isn't left biased. It assuredly is. However, it is a big step to go from "left biased" or even "staffed by people who have a personal affinity for the LPC" to being an organization that is patently "Trudeau Propoganda".
"Left-biased" is sufficient cause to de-fund all news and opinion related activities. A federally-funded news/opinion broadcaster with political bias is a terrible idea.
 
It's one thing to site articles/news stories from sources that are right-leaning. It's another to site articles/news stories from sites that are not only right-leaning, but also who have a history of providing information that is selective, incomplete, unfair, misleading, inaccurate, or even fabricated, and that includes "opinion" pieces being carefully curated to appear as actual news.
It's one thing to site articles/news stories from sources that are left-leaning. It's another to site articles/news stories from sites that are not only left-leaning, but also who have a history of providing information that is selective, incomplete, unfair, misleading, inaccurate, or even fabricated, and that includes "opinion" pieces being carefully curated to appear as actual news.
 
It's one thing to site articles/news stories from sources that are left-leaning. It's another to site articles/news stories from sites that are not only left-leaning, but also who have a history of providing information that is selective, incomplete, unfair, misleading, inaccurate, or even fabricated, and that includes "opinion" pieces being carefully curated to appear as actual news.
I see what you did there.
 
Those aren't narratives those are just "facts".



I've personally never claimed that the CBC isn't left biased. It assuredly is. However, it is a big step to go from "left biased" or even "staffed by people who have a personal affinity for the LPC" to being an organization that is patently "Trudeau Propoganda".

Do you think the China Central Television would ever publish/air a story about Xi similar to the story CBC ran about Trudeau quoted above?
I didn't even claim that CBC was pushing a narrative, what I said was that they were influencing the narrative.

Yes, "facts"... there are many ways to present facts in order to influence they way in which they are perceived though.

An example of how CBC reports its facts has recently been circulating on Twitter... the platform where they now are labelled "government-funded media". Check out this link to their graphical representation of revenue sources from 2017:


The information in the graph is factual, but the subtle use of a tilde sign in the y axis drastically changes the visual presentation of the data. This is an overt example, often things are more nuanced.
 
The information in the graph is factual, but the subtle use of a tilde sign in the y axis drastically changes the visual presentation of the data. This is an overt example, often things are more nuanced.
Yea, I saw that. Absolutely despicable.
 
It's one thing to site articles/news stories from sources that are left-leaning. It's another to site articles/news stories from sites that are not only left-leaning, but also who have a history of providing information that is selective, incomplete, unfair, misleading, inaccurate, or even fabricated, and that includes "opinion" pieces being carefully curated to appear as actual news.
Hey look, we agree on something.

Good Left Leaning News: CBC News
Bias -4.79 (left)
Reliability: 44.59
Bad Left Leaning News: The Rolling Stone
Bias -13.78 (left)
Reliability: 26.11

Good Right Leanings News: WSJ
Bias 5.47 (left)
Reliability: 44.35

Bad Right-Leaning News: The Blaze
Bias 17.73 (right)
Reliability: 28.69
 
For example, last year Heritage Canada was under fire for hiring "anti-racism consultant" Laith Marouf, who was found to express anti-semitic views online. The below article, as well as a few others, can be found through a Google search but if you use the search function on the CBC News website, they're simply not found... but it will provide an article from 2012 where Marouf was the victim of kettling by police at a protest.

A pro-government (selective to party) conspiracy or a crap search engine? I'm inclined towards the latter, even if accepting a tendency to Liberal bias. The CBC's search engine has always been crap, like many organizations who probably pinch pennies and know that they can't compete with Google. I long ago gave up trying find anything on CBC using their search function. Unless it's something that's been in the news recently (past few days) so that it's still fresh (and thus directs eyeballs to their primary function - broadcast), there's no rhyme or reason to the results that any search produces.
 
"Left-biased" is sufficient cause to de-fund all news and opinion related activities. A federally-funded news/opinion broadcaster with political bias is a terrible idea.
Who decides what is and isn't left biased, and then who decides, based on the totality of their content whether or not they are indeed left-biased as a whole? How left biased does it need to be before you defund them? Are you really expecting them to be completely natural/center without any appearance of bias? What if they were "perfectly unbiased", but just one article got published that was just a little bit left or right biased? Would you then defund them? If there was determine to be bias in their national news reporting, do you defund the WHOLE CBC, including all the local chapters? Or do you only defund the areas that are actually found to be biased? If CBC Thunder Bay was foundto be biased, would you defund CBC Nova Scotia? If CBC National was found to be biased, would you de-fund CBC sports? Would you defund CBC radio that is sometimes the only radio station in remote communities, and who broadcasts stories about every-day Canadians that wouldn't elsewise ever get produced?? Would you defund CBC music which promotes locale Canadian musicians that would otherwise never get recognized?
 
Who decides what is and isn't left biased, and then who decides, based on the totality of their content whether or not they are indeed left-biased as a whole? How left biased does it need to be before you defund them? Are you really expecting them to be completely natural/center without any appearance of bias? What if they were "perfectly unbiased", but just one article got published that was just a little bit left or right biased? Would you then defund them? If there was determine to be bias in their national news reporting, do you defund the WHOLE CBC, including all the local chapters? Or do you only defund the areas that are actually found to be biased? If CBC Thunder Bay was foundto be biased, would you defund CBC Nova Scotia? If CBC National was found to be biased, would you de-fund CBC sports? Would you defund CBC radio that is sometimes the only radio station in remote communities, and who broadcasts stories about every-day Canadians that wouldn't elsewise ever get produced?? Would you defund CBC music which promotes locale Canadian musicians that would otherwise never get recognized?
Since it's apparently so difficult, the prudent thing to do is just go ahead and defund those activities. Some people will squeal; if those people are mostly observably left-aligned, the wisdom of the decision is confirmed. I do expect almost no appearance of bias. And, it's probably easier to measure than we think. Often enough the people writing copy just can't help themselves, and insert their contentious priors - a lot of question-begging, and a lot of descriptive modifiers than slant one way and can be measured as favourable/unfavourable. (People can and do measure these things.)

Maybe if they could write copy without contentious adverbs/adjectives, and with no assumption of facts not in evidence or conclusions not supported by premises contained in the article, the funding could continue.
 
The problem is that CBC is that the bias is so ingrained they don't even know it. There is no possibility to even come to some kind of objective middle as the organization is structured. This is true for most government depts. and offices. It starts right at the beginning...there is no really problem with revenue so no drive for eye balls or advertisers. Then through the HR dept that follows like hires like. The DIE requirements are not diversity of thought at all but the opposite. Their world view is so that they never see anything different.

This can be summed up with this quote "the right thinks the left is stupid, The left thinks the right is evil" If you think your opposite is "evil" then there can be no middle ground.
 
In my opinion there is no longer a need for CBC English Television or English TV programming services in the CBC. There are private news organizations and production companies that have proven national reach, coverage and Canadian content so no longer a need for a national English TV broadcaster.

An argument can be made in my mind that there is still a role for Radio-Canada as a national French language broadcaster. There are various Quebec and local French language channels but a national French language TV broadcaster and content provider is probably not commercially viable at this time. As an officially bilingual nation I'm (reluctantly) OK with public funding to fill that gap.

Similarly, CBC North, CBC Radio and RCi are probably worth keeping as fully national, northern and international radio networks are similarly not viable commercially at this point so public funding is required.

The goal however should be to phase these public services out once the private sector is capable of providing these services instead.
 
In my opinion there is no longer a need for CBC English Television or English TV programming services in the CBC. There are private news organizations and production companies that have proven national reach, coverage and Canadian content so no longer a need for a national English TV broadcaster.

An argument can be made in my mind that there is still a role for Radio-Canada as a national French language broadcaster. There are various Quebec and local French language channels but a national French language TV broadcaster and content provider is probably not commercially viable at this time. As an officially bilingual nation I'm (reluctantly) OK with public funding to fill that gap.

Similarly, CBC North, CBC Radio and RCi are probably worth keeping as fully national, northern and international radio networks are similarly not viable commercially at this point so public funding is required.

The goal however should be to phase these public services out once the private sector is capable of providing these services instead.
And even more important.....Why are we paying for a CBC internet platform? There is one space they are not needed and are not helping the other Canadian sites at all. CBC online is taking ad money from others. Plus GEM is not required. They should sell their content to highest bidder to stream on commercial platforms. Why is the government in the streaming business?
 
Back
Top