Quote:
Originally Posted by iggy_oi
Unless you have no connections to the O&G industry I’d say you might not be the best example to use here.  |
exactly so the same can be said for anyone or any organization that is getting paid by another group, probably unlikely to deviate from the government's message. I don't think this is very earth shattering.
Quote:
Originally Posted by iggy_oi
But that doesn’t really make sense because the conservatives would have been their employer when they were in power and they still weren’t big fans of the CBC.
|
Weren't they? I don't really remember much angst or issue when they were in power with the CBC. Most of the claims of bias etc. seem to be more recent from what I recall.
Anyway, it's a dumb argument regardless, my point is that yes they are paid by the government, everyone knows it, there is bias, and that is a natural and normal function of who pays them. If the cons were in power, there would still be bias to the government. It's bias to the government because the government pays them, I don't so much believe it is a political thing. Claiming they're independent is weird and obviously untrue. They mean "impartial" which is more opinion and subject to debate (and I'd argue, not true either, but that's opinion). Twitter is just stating a fact, it's government funded. That's true. Who cares?