[problems]

> which awareness is likely to be much better supported by a publicly owned broadcaster than one that has to be responsive to the needs of its advertisers

Do you have any evidence to support this position? Especially with a biased source like CBC, it seems a pretty big claim.

[anigbrowl]

I do, and I'm delighted you asked. There is some academic evidence (linked below in a relevant news article) but I would have held much the same attitude anyway having grown up and lived in countries with a public broadcaster and then moved to the US which doesn't really have one in the same way. My personal impression is that US consumers enjoy massive choice but that most of the products in he media market are total crap. Consumers are entertained, but that's like saying that consumers who eat a lot of fast food are satisfied by the taste; we can point to a legitimate economic preference, but we're fooling ourselves if we think that a Big Mac is high quality food.

Quality in media is hard to define, but I'd say it means delivering a decent awareness (in the aggregate obviously) of current affairs, sufficient cultural literacy to know a basic history of art, science, and nations, and somewhat greater familiarity with the history of the home country, stuff like that. It would be nice if there were no bias or ideological slant, but that's probably an unachievable goal, and only through the lens of history can we have much certainty about who was objectively right on any given topic. A charter should aim to minimize bias, while accepting its existence as an unavoidable trade-off of media organizations in general, and aiming for measurable improvements in functional knowledge among its consumers.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2013/10/1...

[agmcleod]

I can't disagree on them being biased, i don't watch enough of them to say one way or the other. But they are one of the better news stations in Canada by far.

[bobdole1234]

Biased is entertaining.