Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee
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.
|
I’m pretty confident that most employers wouldn’t agree with my a number of my views(and I’m reasonably confident that is something we can both agree on for a change
) but that doesn’t mean that I would change those views.
Quote:
|
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.
|
Harper’s governments didn’t seem to be big fans of the cbc from my recollection.
Quote:
|
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?
|
I’m honestly not overly concerned about how twitter is labelling the CBC but I think the position that a lot of people have in trying to label the CBC as biased to the point of bringing their credibility into question is overblown and not rooted in much more than their own personal political leanings. When the CBC starts reporting facts inaccurately I’ll change my tune but right now I don’t see them as more biased than the majority of private media companies, regardless of which way those companies lean politically. The politicians who try and make it a divisive issue are in my opinion just playing “hey look over here not at the real issues”