[milderworkacc]

Calling the CBC “Government approved journalists on the government payroll” is an extremely misleading description of what is an overwhelmingly common situation in English speaking democracies.

Canada has the CBC, the UK the BBC, Australia the ABC and NZ TVNZ and associated entities. None of these are Pravda, they’re all arms-length, independently run organisations.

I’m sure they’re all far from perfect (I’m happy to share my opinions on the non-CBC ones in an appropriate thread) but what media organisation is?

[reallyagain]

You're running straight into an established Canadian conservative talking point. It's pushed relentlessly by private news organisations who would reap financial benefit from the CBC being defunded. These organizations also happen to be the major news and opinion source for many conservative people in this country, so there's a convenient feedback loop in place. I'm sure this is not dissimilar to the other countries listed.

I agree with the majority of the linked substack in this thread, I think that the quality of CBC journalism is on a pretty clear downward trend, and I think that ignoring widespread societal issues to focus on the ultra-niche "darling of Twitter" social issues is journalistic malpractice at best.

That being said, the comparison of the CBC to Chinese state-run news broadcasting (while extremely common from conservative opinion makers in this country) is, I'm sorry, a completely childish take.

[version_five]

I really don't see how one could look at CBCs news coverage and feel that way. It's the propaganda arm of the Liberal party, plain and simple. The "childish" take would be really believing that CBC is anything but a liberal mouthpiece. All mainstream Canadian news organizations are garbage, I don't mean to say there is a better alternative, but our tax money only pays for one of them.

[reallyagain]

If the CBC was the "propaganda arm" of the Liberal party, it would follow that they were be extremely negative towards the NDP and the Green party. The combined share of left-wing vote in Canada swamps the combined right-wing vote, and it's not particularly close. In 2021, there were 9 million left-wing votes and 6 million right-wing votes. If we put the BQ with the left-wing(which in my view isn't unreasonable), it's 10.5 million versus 6 million.

If the CBC had daily meetings where they planned on how to elect the Liberals in the next election, the most logical course of action would not to go after Conservatives, but to spend their time going after the other left-wing parties.

But, of course, that's not what happens. Why does that not happen? Because they're not a "propaganda arm" for the Liberal party, they are biased towards small L liberal viewpoints. And that difference is the difference between the CBC and a state-run propaganda program. The childishness is equating the two.

(FWIW, I know three people who work for the CBC, one of whom is a complete moron, and two of whom are good humans. All three are left-wing in their personal lives, but if any of them were in a meeting where it was discussed how to elect the Liberals in the next election, they would walk out on the spot. The idea that that happens is purely a Conservative fantasy.)

[908B64B197]

> If the CBC was the "propaganda arm" of the Liberal party, it would follow that they were be extremely negative towards the NDP and the Green party

These two account for virtually nothing (unless I'm missinterpreting how seat allocation works up north). They aren't a threat.

> But, of course, that's not what happens. Why does that not happen? Because they're not a "propaganda arm" for the Liberal party

You seem to believe you have better information and political skills than their paid staff. That's a bold statement.

> but if any of them were in a meeting where it was discussed how to elect the Liberals in the next election, they would walk out on the spot. The idea that that happens is purely a Conservative fantasy.

I have no doubts that your friends aren't invited to these meetings. It's happening behind closed doors way above their paygrade.

[reallyagain]

The statement that "the NDP and Green Party aren't a political threat to the Liberal party" is a staggering misunderstanding of a situation on which you are speaking authoritatively.

With the utmost respect, I think an elementary understanding of multi-party democracies would be a useful first step for this discussion.

It may be instructive to look at some of the key Canadian swing ridings:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richmond_Hill_(electoral_distr... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitchener%E2%80%94Conestoga#El... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Moody%E2%80%94Coquitlam#E... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pitt_Meadows%E2%80%94Maple_Rid...

There's a reason that Canadian Conservatives have fought tooth-and-nail against any type of ranked-choice voting system. I genuinely believe that the Conservatives would not win another election in my lifetime in a ranked-choice system.

[moistly]

I could go on, linking to abundant examples of CBC savaging all parties but I’ll sum up your take with one summarizing word: bullshit.

[908B64B197]

> is an extremely misleading description of what is an overwhelmingly common situation in English speaking democracies.

... but who signs the check?

> they're all arms-length, independently run organizations.

I have no doubts they claim to be. It's pretty convenient to have a news organization that you can claim is "independent", but that will still take commands from you. Like, for example, if you don't want a certain story to be heard. After all, you are signing the check...

Even better, because you subsidize it so much it makes it harder for truly independent medias to survive, so it becomes a single source of "truth". Because your competitor has to make money and attract viewers, while the state-backed network doesn't.