Quote:
Originally Posted by PepsiFree
No hard feelings. You gave me an excuse to go back and enjoy my own posts again. A rare gift.
They explained yesterday:
https://twitter.com/user/status/1647775988162469894
So, there are a few good answers to your question:
One, is that the way Twitter defines "government funded media" does not accurately describe what they are.
Two, is that a very small portion of people who get value from CBC do so exclusively through Twitter.
Three, probably because the people criticizing them for it are the people who are describing what the CBC is doing as "an embarrassing little temper tantrum" instead of directing their criticism to the actual embarrassments in this situation: Twitter/Musk and CPC/Pierre, and therefore their opinion is a bit questionable. |
Actually your first point is just completely wrong and the fact that the CBC can’t accurately report on that doesn’t scream “we all need to be paying for this thing” to me.
So not only are they throwing a little tantrum over a label, they’re just hurting their credibility more by trying to justify it with inaccuracies.
Quote:
|
“Government-funded media is defined as outlets where the government provides some or all of the outlet’s funding and may have varying degrees of government involvement over editorial content. We may use external sources similar to this one in order to determine when this label is applied.”
|
So, a nice little sleight of hand crop job by the CBC instead of just posting the definition. Slick