Canadian Federal Politics Thread v5

[Yoho]

CBC was smart enough to turn the comments off their tweet that announced taking a pause in response to Twitter.

[PeteMoss]

They are doing it because it's not an important driver of traffic for them. That is one of Elon's big issues. Twitter just doesn't drive anywhere close to the traffic that Facebook or Google do. So they can just leave it and go on with life.

[lambeburger]

Originally Posted by GGG

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?

Yes. People would benefit knowing how the media they consume is funded.

[neo45]

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.

“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

[GGG]

Originally Posted by lambeburger

Yes. People would benefit knowing how the media they consume is funded.

How far do you go. Should the Globe and Mail list the largest shareholders and there are business interests? Should they list the advertising spend of their largest advertisers?

Right now this seems like a half measure.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by neo45

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.



So, a nice little sleight of hand crop job by the CBC instead of just posting the definition. Slick

Did you intentionally remove the link to a Wikipedia page as a potential source of public broadcasters? That is a brutal definition. I can remove the CBC from the list if it makes you feel better.

[Yoho]

https://twitter.com/user/status/1648067651623608320

Disgusting.

https://nationalpost.com/news/libera...e4f1a404a/amp/

[neo45]

Originally Posted by GGG

Did you intentionally remove the link to a Wikipedia page as a potential source of public broadcasters? That is a brutal definition. I can remove the CBC from the list if it makes you feel better.

No clue what you’re even referring to honestly

[belsarius]

Originally Posted by Yoho

https://twitter.com/user/status/1648067651623608320

Disgusting.

https://nationalpost.com/news/libera...e4f1a404a/amp/

Why is it disgusting? The NDP want the Auditor General to oversee the audit instead of a political committee. I agree with them that the AG would be better suited for looking into the foundation than members on a committee.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by belsarius

Why is it disgusting? The NDP want the Auditor General to oversee the audit instead of a political committee. I agree with them that the AG would be better suited for looking into the foundation than members on a committee.

You're ruining a perfectly good narrative. For shame!

[neo45]

Originally Posted by belsarius

Why is it disgusting? The NDP want the Auditor General to oversee the audit instead of a political committee. I agree with them that the AG would be better suited for looking into the foundation than members on a committee.

Because it’s a joke that the foundation being audited gets to suggest the auditor?

NDP MP Blake Desjarlais pointed out that the Trudeau Foundation itself has said it would welcome an investigation by Auditor General Karen Hogan into the donation, and that Hogan would be best placed to prepare this audit in lieu of the committee members.

Why is the target of an investigation suggesting the investigator?

[timun]

Originally Posted by neo45

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.

So, a nice little sleight of hand crop job by the CBC instead of just posting the definition. Slick

The operative part of Twitter's definition of "government-funded media"—which doesn't apply to the CBC—is "may have varying degrees of government involvement over editorial content". So, that's what the CBC quoted. There's no "sleight of hand" here, you're just seemingly incapable of reading things in context.

Originally Posted by GGG

Did you intentionally remove the link to a Wikipedia page as a potential source of public broadcasters? That is a brutal definition. I can remove the CBC from the list if it makes you feel better.

Originally Posted by neo45

No clue what you’re even referring to honestly

You copied the "full" definition of "government-funded media" from Twitter (https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-an...t-media-labels), but neglected to keep the inline link to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catego...d_broadcasters intact.



I presume this wasn't deliberate "sleight of hand" on your part...






Just so we're all clear, from https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-an...t-media-labels:



The only difference between "government-funded media" and "publicly-funded media" is "varying degrees of government involvement over editorial content". As the government has no involvement with the CBC's editorial content , by Twitter's own definitions it is "publicly-funded" not "government-funded".

[iggy_oi]

I wanna know who funds groups like Canada Proud but Elon is failing me.

[neo45]

Originally Posted by GGG

How far do you go. Should the Globe and Mail list the largest shareholders and there are business interests? Should they list the advertising spend of their largest advertisers?

Right now this seems like a half measure.

I don’t put much stock into slippery slope arguments but the clear defining line here is that one is publicly funded by the government and one is privately funded, so expecting equal levels of transparency of their financial statements doesn’t make any sense to me.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

I wanna know who funds groups like Canada Proud but Elon is failing me.

Morons. The answer is morons. Funders? Morons. Writers? Morons. Re-tweeters? You bet your butt they are morons.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Morons. The answer is morons. Funders? Morons. Writers? Morons. Re-tweeters? You bet your butt they are morons.

Too vague

[timun]

Originally Posted by neo45

I don’t put much stock into slippery slope arguments but the clear defining line here is that one is publicly funded by the government and one is privately funded, so expecting equal levels of transparency of their financial statements doesn’t make any sense to me.

Tsk-tsk-tsk, no no: they get government money too. By Twitter's definition, that makes them "publicly-funded media".

[Johnny Makarov]

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?

Would Pierre Crypto 2X4 freak out if twitter gave a "deplorable piece of rightwing piece of kyit" tag on his account? lol.

[Reggie Dunlop]

The CBC (as well as other outlets) should set up their own Federated Instances....

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by timun

The operative part of Twitter's definition of "government-funded media"—which doesn't apply to the CBC—is "may have varying degrees of government involvement over editorial content". So, that's what the CBC quoted. There's no "sleight of hand" here, you're just seemingly incapable of reading things in context.






You copied the "full" definition of "government-funded media" from Twitter (https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-an...t-media-labels), but neglected to keep the inline link to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catego...d_broadcasters intact.



I presume this wasn't deliberate "sleight of hand" on your part...






Just so we're all clear, from https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-an...t-media-labels:



The only difference between "government-funded media" and "publicly-funded media" is "varying degrees of government involvement over editorial content". As the government has no involvement with the CBC's editorial content , by Twitter's own definitions it is "publicly-funded" not "government-funded".

Nice little sleight of hand takedown. Slick.