Canadian Federal Politics Thread v5

[Monahammer]

Originally Posted by Matata

CBC is less "gov't funded" and much more "liberal funded". Conservatives with Harper were toying with the idea of dissolving the CBC, Trudeau fires cannons filled with hundreds of millions of dollars at the CBC if someone whispers 'election' within earshot.

I don't think anyone at the CBC has any doubt about where their bread is buttered and who they want in office. The incestuous relationship between Liberals and CBC has been a huge driver in enacting their policies: Liberals make proposition --> CBC provides affirmation --> Liberals make policy based on CBCs affirmation.

The logical defeat to your point exists within the post you've made. I've bolded it here for you, but I'll spoiler the answer for your so that you can work through it in your own time.

Spoiler!

Harper had almost a decade to defund and fold the CBC. He didn't. Go look up how much money "he" gave them, it's public record.

[Monahammer]

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...ticle17898560/

Cretien was actually the worst for the CBC. I wonder if anyone has done this work recently? I would be interested to see how the last few budgets stack up.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

Sure and I'm "independent" and express my views independently from my employer.

Do you believe me?

They are obviously biased and everyone has known this since its inception. No organization is going to outright state they're biased, and they are not independent despite them saying so. Obviously. Follow the money.

So why doesn't the CBC swing to right wing when the Conservatives are in control of the government?

And most people are pretty independent of where they work. I don't know where 99% of you work and outside of a few O&G guys on here - I don't see too many people through out obvious agendas that are pro-whatever work they are doing.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

So why doesn't the CBC swing to right wing when the Conservatives are in control of the government?

It's probably why cons hate them. They expect CBC to be a propaganda wing when they're in power but CBC doesn't bite.

Sounds like it's functioning just fine.

[btimbit]

Good on them for joining other media outlets and leaving twitter. Now if only more people and groups would leave it too

[PeteMoss]

We've been through the CBC is biased discussion a billion times here. It always ends the same way with someone asking the person who says it biased to show their work about the bias and they never do.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

Sure and I'm "independent" and express my views independently from my employer.

Do you believe me?

Unless you have no connections to the O&G industry I’d say you might not be the best example to use here.

They are obviously biased and everyone has known this since its inception. No organization is going to outright state they're biased, and they are not independent despite them saying so. Obviously. Follow the money.

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.

[Firebot]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

CBC's indepenence is written into the broadcast act:

https://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/...4.html#h-34524



If they are bias - its because most of urban Canada leans left. Its not because Trudeau or whoever is cracking the whip telling them what to report.

Accountability of Corporation to Parliament

40 The Corporation is ultimately accountable, through the Minister, to Parliament for the conduct of its affairs.

Doesn't sound very independent to me if they are accountable to the government?

Though I full agree with you. Trudeau isn't calling the shots at the CBC, and heck even though I loathe the CBC's conduct I would never claim such. They are not a state media piece seen in countries like China or Russia.

Though in their independence, they also know who greases their bun, and if you have one party looking to defund the CBC, and another who had significantly boosted their power and funds, they would choose the later.

And there lies the problem with government funded media that inherently will display a bias based on who they want in power. As they are a source of information and opinion influencing Canadians that most certainly can impact elections.

This is precisely why it should be defunded and why we as a country should not have government funded media (at the very least news) which has an inherent bias. And the CBC leaving Twitter simply affirms that they are not as impartial as claimed.

Why else would they throw a hissy fit on a title that is literally true and well known? There's no arguing, it's government funded media. Worse of all, they don't make any money. Without government funding, they simply do not exist. Taxpayers pay over a billion dollars a year that goes in a black hole, only to find that black hole subjectively provide biased reporting to increase the amount going into that black hole.

This is not the actions of a non-partisan organization, filing a lawsuit 10 days against a political party prior to an important election date.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/cbc-conserva...suit-1.5319209

Or what about this CBC article that reads like a rant during the Harper days? CBC's feud with the CPC has been very public over the past 10 years.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manit...ings-1.3249477

"For 80 years, the government has funded the CBC. It has given it a set mandate that the CBC has to comply," she said. "For Mr. Harper to suddenly say the problems are not a result of his funding cuts boggles the mind.

"The CBC is in a funding crisis. It has all these programming responsibilities and it just can't keep doing them with the funding at the level that it's at."

If someone can show me where the CBC has sued the Liberal party in recent years (like don't try to find a 40 year old incident), or can show the CBC's head honcho spar with Trudeau, than I will gladly accept it and can find these incidents to be a wash.

Oh and Poilievre is being an absolute dunce on this thing, but considering the CBC's reaction, looks like it's working.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

We've been through the CBC is biased discussion a billion times here. It always ends the same way with someone asking the person who says it biased to show their work about the bias and they never do.

I think what gets lost is bias vs lack of independence. The CBC has a center left bias to some arbitrary line where people drew the Center. This bias happens to align more or less where the liberals currently reside.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/cbc-n...-broadcasting/

If you go back to other liberal governments when the threat was from the right rather than the left the CBC would have been to the left of the liberals who were a Center right party in the Chrétien / Martin years.

Now in all scenarios they are independent of the government regardless of the bias in their reporting.

For example the globe and mail is right Center bias and highly factual

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-globe-and-mail/

[Weitz]

So the cbc is upset that twitter put a “government funded” tag on their twitter account, when in fact they are government funded?

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Firebot

-snip-And the CBC leaving Twitter simply affirms that they are not as impartial as claimed.

Why else would they throw a hissy fit on a title that is literally true and well known? There's no arguing, it's government funded media. Worse of all, they don't make any money. Without government funding, they simply do not exist. Taxpayers pay over a billion dollars a year that goes in a black hole, only to find that black hole subjectively provide biased reporting to increase the amount going into that black hole.

How does the CBC deciding to pause driving traffic to a private individual's website show they aren't impartial? That's a weird conclusion.

Originally Posted by Firebot

If someone can show me where the CBC has sued the Liberal party in recent years (like don't try to find a 40 year old incident), or can show the CBC's head honcho spar with Trudeau, than I will gladly accept it and can find these incidents to be a wash.-snip-

Uhm, well if you read the article...

In a legal application to the Federal Court of Canada, the CBC served notice it wants the Conservative Party of Canada and its executive director, Dustin Van Vugt, to acknowledge the party "engaged in the unauthorized use of copyright-protected material."

CBC-Radio Canada named the journalists in the lawsuit, according to the statement, "because their images and journalism were misused for partisan purposes negatively impacting perceptions of their independence."

Isn't this what we want? Not to have their independence slandered? Maybe the CBC hasn't sued the Liberals becuase they haven't attempted to slander their journalists.

I don't understand this weird attachment some have to equivalences. Some things don't have equivalences because the actions taken by the players are not equivalent. The RCMP don't have to arrest every Canadian becuase they arrested one Canadian. That's not how this works.

[belsarius]

Originally Posted by Weitz

So the cbc is upset that twitter put a “government funded” tag on their twitter account, when in fact they are government funded?

The issue isn't that the tag isn't factually true - the issue is that it intentionally creates confusion between "government funded" and "state sponsored". By adding this tag, it is attempting to make the former appear to be the latter, targeted at the lowest common denominator of right wing voters. It already worked as PP is trying to use the tag as a dog whistle on why "CBC bad".

Any functional reader would understand the difference and it really makes no difference - but functional readers aren't Musk's target audience.

[Firebot]

Originally Posted by Weitz

So the cbc is upset that twitter put a “government funded” tag on their twitter account, when in fact they are government funded?

Not only that, but CEO Hubert Lacroix in 2015 literally ranted against the CPC to make CBC government funding an election priority in 2015 (which was less than a month away).

2015 -> big speech about how CBC has been government funded for 80 years and needs to get more funding from said government
2023 -> CBC leaves Twitter in a hissy fit after being branded 'government funded'

And there are some who are likely literally typing as I write this to counter my first post in an attempt to to validate the CBC, ironically likely the several of which are also staunch Liberal apologists.

[Mr.Coffee]

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.

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?

[zamler]

I'm so checked out of the culture wars, dip my toe back in now I know why I left. CBC is pausing their activity on Twitter because of a true statement under their name? PP crowing about......well I don't know what he is saying to be honest.

Everyone on Twitter is arguing about absolutely NOTHING of value. Mindless vitriol trying to score a gotcha, not unlike this thread.

[Firebot]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Isn't this what we want? Not to have their independence slandered? Maybe the CBC hasn't sued the Liberals becuase they haven't attempted to slander their journalists.

I don't understand this weird attachment some have to equivalences. Some things don't have equivalences because the actions taken by the players are not equivalent. The RCMP don't have to arrest every Canadian becuase they arrested one Canadian. That's not how this works.

Michael Geist doesn't agree with you whatsoever. And I highly suggest you review what you just claimed as it's categorically false (and ironically slander)

https://www.michaelgeist.ca/2019/10/...rvative-party/


Luckily neither does our court system which saw the lawsuit as frivolous and without merit and CPC usage was fair use. Unfortunately, the CBC showed its hands in acting the way it did just days prior to an election.

https://www.shiftlaw.ca/federal-cour...on-attack-ads/

The very fact you are now arguing against equivalences instead of finding an equivalence, means the CBC is not equivalent in how they report or act, but thanks for confirming.

[GGG]

Has twitter added all of the qualified Journalist Organizations to their list of companies that are government funded?

Essentially all legacy print media and a lot of new digital media all receives government money.

So should the Globe and Mail and National post be listed as government funded on Twitter?

[belsarius]

Originally Posted by Firebot

Michael Gaest doesn't agree with you whatsoever.

https://www.michaelgeist.ca/2019/10/...rvative-party/


Luckily neither does our court system which saw the lawsuit as frivolous and without merit and CPC usage was fair use.

https://www.shiftlaw.ca/federal-cour...on-attack-ads/

The very fact you are now arguing about equivalences, means the CBC is not equivalent, but thanks for confirming.

The Federal Court acknowledged the CBC’s concerns that using its footage in partisan ads (where the CBC is clearly identified as the source of the footage) could affect the public’s perception of its neutrality as a state broadcaster in the future. Interestingly, the Court speculated that there could be situations in the future where evidence of this sort of reputational harm might weigh in favour of unfairness, but, in this case, the Court found no objective evidence that the CBC’s reputation was adversely affected.

Yeah, in this case they sided with the fair use, but they also recognized that the concerns of the CBC were valid. Far from calling it "frivolous"

[Firebot]

Originally Posted by belsarius

Yeah, in this case they sided with the fair use, but they also recognized that the concerns of the CBC were valid. Far from calling it "frivolous"

They recognized that usage of the CBC logo could be seen as potentially damaging. Basically fair use doesn't give the CPC or any other party a carte blanche on what it can do as it could be damaging if misused.

It wasn't in this case, as such was dismissed. It was indeed a frivolous lawsuit that even people within the CBC itself were unsure of going through with it.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Firebot

Liberal apologists.

I love how triggered you are by the CBC but I love even more that you apparently discovered the term "liberal apologists" three weeks ago and now everything you see is a liberal apologist.

Originally Posted by Firebot

Good going Mr Coffee, you just gave the apologists a reason to deviate and deflect. ....

Don't give the apologists an out so easily.

Originally Posted by Firebot

Very angry Liberal apologists out in full force...

Originally Posted by Firebot

There's a pretty clear attempt by Liberal apologists...

Enjoy a little research on my dime and come back with some fresh content. I'm about to blow your world wide open my man: https://www.dictionary.com/