American Politics 4.0 - Orangeyou Glad He’s Back?

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

If the Conservatives held power for the last 10 years would there be a shift rightward in their reporting and journalism? Yeah, I think so. Was there a right bias when Harper was in power? I’m not too sure, I honestly don’t remember.

‘I don’t remember if the thing I think would happen, happened.’

Brilliant.

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

OK so provide some proof of it then please.
You are basically saying that the government is influencing the coverage of CBC.
Produce some actual information that shows that.

Otherwise you are part of the problem. A strongly formed loud opinion based on poor knowledge, little information, and bad assumptions.

To answer your question. No. When Harper was in power they didn't have a right bias. I would suggest that any left lean was in place then as well. Which suggests little to no influence by the government in power.

Is it possible that bias less so a result of government influence and moreso government policy? Harper's government regularly cut the CBC budget and by the end of their run they had cut the budget by around 14%. It seems reasonable that CBC would be heavily critical of a government that is taking away funding. Trudeau's Liberals ran on increasing funds and did actually increase the CBC budget so why would the organization want to "bite the hand that feeds them?" The only government that cut funding more than Harper's was Chretien's and I'm not old enough to remember how CBC reported on that government.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

Is it possible that bias less so a result of government influence and moreso government policy? Harper's government regularly cut the CBC budget and by the end of their run they had cut the budget by around 14%. It seems reasonable that CBC would be heavily critical of a government that is taking away funding. Trudeau's Liberals ran on increasing funds and did actually increase the CBC budget so why would the organization want to "bite the hand that feeds them?" The only government that cut funding more than Harper's was Chretien's and I'm not old enough to remember how CBC reported on that government.

Were they pro-conservative before the cuts made by the Harper government?

[savemedrzaius]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

Is it possible that bias less so a result of government influence and moreso government policy? Harper's government regularly cut the CBC budget and by the end of their run they had cut the budget by around 14%. It seems reasonable that CBC would be heavily critical of a government that is taking away funding. Trudeau's Liberals ran on increasing funds and did actually increase the CBC budget so why would the organization want to "bite the hand that feeds them?" The only government that cut funding more than Harper's was Chretien's and I'm not old enough to remember how CBC reported on that government.

Wouldn't this mean during Harpers reign they would have been sucking up even more so because they wanted to ensure to get their $$.

Or maybe just CBC isn't under anyone's outright sway and they should get the same funds no matter who is in power to guarantee as unbiased reporting as possible.

As a Canadian citizen who is no longer a resident any chance I get to watch the CBC is a moment I treasure. They report fukups on both side equally and fairly IMO.

[Barnet Flame]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

No I definitely understand there’s a difference, probably, although I am assuming this based on what I know. I don’t go out of my way to read and absorb a bunch of Chinese or Russian news do you? Are you an expert and absorb a ton of their media? And I think this discussion has mostly veered off into a weird strawman because back to the original point there is some implicit bias because of which group pays the bills.

TBH this is just human nature. It’s not a controversial take. Maybe in CP, I guess. Those who pay the bills have the ability to massage, coerce and generally dictate things even at “arms length” lol.and yes the CBC is biased.

This.

This is the point where you have to realise the futility of trying to have a reasoned discussion with this guy.

[Barnet Flame]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

The source also gives a lot of context to that evaluation, which you’re free to read any time. Some of that context has even been posted here if it makes it easier for you.

You’ve used “lazy” to describe yourself so, in fairness, there’s really no reason for me to think that would be insulting to you. I’m sorry.

I also don’t think the last line is true. Recently a bully, who I’m guessing has some personal struggles he takes out on others, logged in just to tell me to shut the #### up and called me the worst person on the entire forum, and instead of returning the unprompted insult, I just made light of it. Lesson being, you don’t always have to respond to insults with more insults, even if they come from mean-spirited people.

Now go ahead and actually read up on these topics instead of just waiting for everyone to hand it to you. You’re more than capable of having the answers to these questions, if you actually want them.

That’s just ridiculous.

Slava is way worse than you. And he supports Spurs.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by ResAlien

Cancel Paramount+? And miss out on all that sweet sweet dad tv? Geriatrics nationwide would revolt.

They still have Food Network and HGTV, they should be alright. Maybe we can bring back some Dallas or M*A*S*H reruns to help with the withdrawal symptoms.

[indes]

Wouldn't the logical solution be to guarantee CBC funding?

How can you say the CBC is more influenced by where the money comes from than private institutions, who have 0 responsibility to the readers and only to their shareholders? You can't have it both ways. The only reason CBC is in the crosshairs is because its not for sale and can't be influenced by private money. What is with "conservatives" and their lust for privatization? All privatization does is funnel money money to the rich and increase the wealth gap.

FFS use your brain and stop simping for the rich. Look at America, they're crumbling in a mad dash to consolidate as much wealth and power into the hands of the few as they can. And they can't do it fast enough, bunch of morons.

[GioforPM]

I tend to think that CBC reporting is factual and accurate. And the reason the right believes this is biased is because the facts are usually against them.

[Red Slinger]

Just curious...is the CBC reporting on Trump being a pedophile who is in the Epstein files? Because I heard he is.

[MegaErtz]

This should have been the end of CBC:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/smi...utts-1.6898287

[Red Slinger]

Originally Posted by MegaErtz

This should have been the end of CBC:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/smi...utts-1.6898287

If the burden to remain a viable media outlet is that no mistakes are allowed then we would be left with no media at all. I suspect you don't apply the same exacting standards to your own life and/or work. The fact that the CBC retracted and then published a story about their retraction is WAY more than you would typically get from Rebel, Fox, NP or most of the other propaganda outlets the gullible dine out on regularly.

By the way, I heard something about Trump being a pedo? Did you hear that too?

[MegaErtz]

Oh, please don't confuse my criticism of CBC with blindness to Trump's crimes. You're right, it is unlikely that the Rebel would retract a massive error like this, but I doubt Fox News or the National Post would go ahead with a major story without having verified that the emails in question actually existed.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by MegaErtz

Oh, please don't confuse my criticism of CBC with blindness to Trump's crimes. You're right, it is unlikely that the Rebel would retract a massive error like this, but I doubt Fox News or the National Post would go ahead with a major story without having verified that the emails in question actually existed.

This is how I know you don't live in the real world.

Fox News agreed Tuesday to pay Dominion Voting Systems nearly $800 million to avert a trial in the voting machine company’s lawsuit that would have exposed how the network promoted lies about the 2020 presidential election.

https://apnews.com/article/fox-news-...80b3e747fb0afe


This wasn't due to a lack of depth in research, it was purposefully lying.

[Fuzz]

And to suggest the entire CBC organization should be shut down because of one unverified piece of information that was supporting a story that is still true, just missing an email, is a ridiculous notion. You are blinded bias instilled in you from people trying to take journalism away, so they can lie and manipulate Canadians. But then, I have to wonder what the point is, since they've managed to do it to you without needing to shut down the CBC.

[MegaErtz]

Haha fair point! Tough to argue with a $787 million settlement.

[MegaErtz]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

And to suggest the entire CBC organization should be shut down because of one unverified piece of information that was supporting a story that is still true, just missing an email, is a ridiculous notion. You are blinded bias instilled in you from people trying to take journalism away, so they can lie and manipulate Canadians. But then, I have to wonder what the point is, since they've managed to do it to you without needing to shut down the CBC.

Now I don't agree with this at all. I listen to the Eyeopener every morning, so I'm a CBC patron. However, I don't think our tax dollars should be subsidizing a news organization that made such a massive mistake, especially in the weeks leading up to what was a tight provincial election.

[MegaErtz]

It was the same with the Dan Rather/George Bush story. You simply cannot make such a massive mistake. It was the end of Rather's long and tenured career, as it should have been. You erode the public's trust in news media when you run with false information.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by MegaErtz

It was the same with the Dan Rather/George Bush story. You simply cannot make such a massive mistake. It was the end of Rather's long and tenured career, as it should have been. You erode the public's trust in news media when you run with false information.

That's more typical what would happen. The person(s) who made the mistake would be disciplined or fired. Including in this case perhaps the reporter and/or editor involved. It wouldn't mean the end of the entire outlet or how they are funded. Particularly from a single incident.

[BigThief]

Originally Posted by MegaErtz

Oh, please don't confuse my criticism of CBC with blindness to Trump's crimes. You're right, it is unlikely that the Rebel would retract a massive error like this, but I doubt Fox News or the National Post would go ahead with a major story without having verified that the emails in question actually existed.

Yeah, sure

On May 19, 2006, the National Post in Canada published an article titled "Iran Eyes Badges for Jews: Law would require non-Muslim insignia" by Iranian in exile Amir Taheri alleging that the Iranian parliament had passed a sumptuary law mandating a national dress code for all Iranians, Muslim and non-Muslim alike.
The article went on to say that non-Muslim religious minorities in Iran would be required to wear "special insignia": yellow for Jews, red for Christians and blue for Zoroastrians. According to the article by Taheri, "the new codes would enable Muslims to easily recognize non-Muslims so that they can avoid shaking hands with them by mistake, and thus becoming najis (ritually unclean)".[1]
Numerous other sources, including Maurice Motamed, the Jewish member of the Iranian parliament and the Iranian Embassy in Canada, refuted the report as untrue. The National Post later retracted the original article and published an article, to the contrary ("Experts say report of badges for Jews in Iran is untrue").[2]
The original article listed only "human rights groups" and "Iranian expatriates living in Canada" as its sources. Amir Taheri made a statement on May 22, 2006, saying the National Post story he authored was used by "a number of reports that somehow jumped the gun" and that he stands by the article.[3]
On May 24, 2006, the National Post issued an apology for the reports that the Iranian law would "require Jews and other religious minorities in Iran to wear badges... We apologize for the mistake and for the consternation it has caused not just National Post readers, but the broader public who read the story

The National Post issued an apology from editor-in-chief Douglas Kelly on May 24, stating, "It is now clear the story is not true.