I’ve read an article by one ex-CBCer that pretty much says they are actually concerned about perception of liberal bias and it results in an exaggerated “both sides” approach.
1. CSEC tells the City they don't want to pay their agreed-upon share of escalating costs and they will therefore pull out of the deal.
2. Mayor tweets out her understanding of what CSEC told the City. CSEC says nothing directly to contradict her version of events.
3. CSEC pulls out of the deal.
4. Somehow people assume #2 is relevant to the causal link between #1 and #3.
5. "Both sides, many sides".
This needs to be read again.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to jayswin For This Useful Post:
I said it before, opinions can be discussed and her article is primarily her opinion on what is happening at the CBC. I'd love her to cite exact and specific examples of where CBC gets it wrong but there's also too many things to consider while 'going after' your former employer.
To me what really stood out was this:
"It is to pretend that the “woke” worldview is near universal — even if it is far from popular with those you know, and speak to, and interview, and read.
To work at the CBC now is to accept the idea that race is the most significant thing about a person, and that some races are more relevant to the public conversation than others. It is, in my newsroom, to fill out racial profile forms for every guest you book; to actively book more people of some races and less of others."
That's basically what Breitbart and OAN does but on the other side of the spectrum.
What I gleaned from the Henley article was that in her view this News Institution used to be revered and that now it's shifted so much from purely informative to biased or even agenda-driven. She actually seems disappointed/heartbroken to me.
I don't mind if a news organization picks a side, I don't even mind if they make more money from advertisers because of it. The main problem for me is that the CBC are in very very large part funded by taxpayer money.
You can't be taking friendly selfies with the PM cuz you like him or air a controversial story where you only interview people who didn't agree with Dave Chappelle, for example. That's right out of the Fox News or CNBC playbook and I expect better from the CBC.
I'll read the Gawker article you shared too. Thanks man.
Until otherwise proven, I'm going to assume she saw a business opportunity and took it. Part of that business strategy (as shown by people who've been successful at it) is to complain your mainstream media job is being taken over by woke young people who won't tell both sides of the story.
Nothing wrong with her trying to make money and you can see it works based on people just gobbling it up as it matches their priors.
Whether any of this is applicable or not is really pretty irrelevant. Literally, the only reason we have a Mayor and council is to solve problems. There were many days between the Mayor’s tweets and the actual deadline. A good leader would have used this time to at least try to bridge the gap. She needed to throw it back in CSEC’s court . in writing: “Murray, obviously we have an issue. Please let me know exactly what we can do as a council to solve this.” At this point either CSEC responds or they let the deal expire. If they respond, however outrageous the demands are, it would need to go to a special session of council, a session that the Mayor can convene. A session that several council members asked for. At that point, merits can be discussed, council can approve or not, and the burden moves to the entire council instead of resting on the Mayor’s shoulders. If CSEC doesn’t respond, then obviously they were just looking for an out. Either way, the Mayor would be doing what is expected of the office. By going to Twitter to announce early, she made it about her, provided a scapegoat for those that needed one and killed any goodwill that may, or may not, have possibly existed. We’re almost 2000 posts into this….
I don't believe there was anything to solve, though. CSEC decided they weren't going forward with it. Short of council agreeing to take on massive cost increases(far beyoned the sidewalk and solar red hearing), CSEC was out. She was just relaying the message that had already been sent. That's it. And it's probably why the majority of council didn't vote for a session for it.
The Following 14 Users Say Thank You to Fuzz For This Useful Post:
Until otherwise proven, I'm going to assume she saw a business opportunity and took it. Part of that business strategy (as shown by people who've been successful at it) is to complain your mainstream media job is being taken over by woke young people who won't tell both sides of the story.
Nothing wrong with her trying to make money and you can see it works based on people just gobbling it up as it matches their priors.
I read it and she actually gives 3 examples, the Chappelle piece, mandatory vaxx story and the trouble in booking a coloured conservative like Jamil Jivani. She complains that there's 2 Covid stories per day and less coverage on the wealth gap and opioid crisis as well, so chalk that up to a general complaint about for-profit news outlets these days. CBC isn't for-profit.
She also talks about how subtlety . You really can't ignore nuance in any of these 'hit piece' type of articles cuz it's really about grey area instead of white and black.
Other than repeating what she said in her article, it reads like she just handled the reporters "gotcha" questions which is something reporters do. We just saw Jim Matheson do the same thing with Leon Draistaitl.
If you need proof after proof that her opinion is real, I dunno what to tell you.
To me her opinion sounds in line with the stuff that's talked about in Real Time on HBO. For everything extra about Bill Maher, he does make strong points about how illiberal liberalism is these days.
I read it and she actually gives 3 examples, the Chappelle piece, mandatory vaxx story and the trouble in booking a coloured conservative like Jamil Jivani. She complains that there's 2 Covid stories per day and less coverage on the wealth gap and opioid crisis as well, so chalk that up to a general complaint about for-profit news outlets these days. CBC isn't for-profit.
She also talks about how subtlety . You really can't ignore nuance in any of these 'hit piece' type of articles cuz it's really about grey area instead of white and black.
Other than repeating what she said in her article, it reads like she just handled the reporters "gotcha" questions which is something reporters do. We just saw Jim Matheson do the same thing with Leon Draistaitl.
If you need proof after proof that her opinion is real, I dunno what to tell you.
To me her opinion sounds in line with the stuff that's talked about in Real Time on HBO. For everything extra about Bill Maher, he does make strong points about how illiberal liberalism is these days.
It just sounds like Tara Henley wanted to work at Fox News and Jesse Brown calls her out on her examples. The "birthing person" example is hilarious as it showed up twice in CBC articles.
How do having articles about COVID and vaccine mandates show left-leaning bias?
How does not covering the opioid crisis (to be honest, the CBC has several articles on this) show left-leaning bias?
How does wanting to have a few more POCs for representation on news items show left-leaning bias?
Every single one has been asked in the past and turned down owning and NHL team, try again.
LOL...anything to back that up?
The last times Canadian franchises changed owners:
EDM - 2008
VAN - 2004
OTT - 2003
Kinda weird that Chip and Camp have amassed their fortunes since then.
I'll never understand the sentiment that owning a team is some sort of headache/hardship and there is nobody out there who would be remotely interested.
All hobbies require investment...very few deliver a big ROI
All investments carry risk...very few come with the same perks as owning a team.
There is also no reason an owner has to be particularly local. Murray is barely local now. Some owners have multiple franchises in different leagues and different cities.
Also consider the scarcity of franchises in eastern Canada...TOR and MTL are essentially out of reach, leaving only OTT as the only plausible option. Step 1 can be to just get into the club (Leipold, Spano lol, etc.).
It’s funded by Bell Media so it’s not exactly a shocker that CTV shows up as most factually reliable with least right wing bias.
These things are so useless because the elephant on the couch that isn’t discussed is sensationalization.
They all sensationalize with or without facts because they’re all trying to sell advertising and attract the eyeballs of an audience lacking critical thinking skills that is easily seduced by emotionally potent oversimplification.
Uncoupling news from entertainment would be a good starting point, but that is easier said than done.
It just sounds like Tara Henley wanted to work at Fox News and Jesse Brown calls her out on her examples. The "birthing person" example is hilarious as it showed up twice in CBC articles.
How do having articles about COVID and vaccine mandates show left-leaning bias?
How does not covering the opioid crisis (to be honest, the CBC has several articles on this) show left-leaning bias?
How does wanting to have a few more POCs for representation on news items show left-leaning bias?
Lol from the CBC to Fox News... I guess we'll just ignore nuance.
You can probably ask those questions to Tara Henley directly on Twitter if you like, she might even answer.
For me the question is how does airing a piece on Chappelle where you only interview 1 side of the argument not show bias? That's what Fox News does cuz they only cater to a specific audience. CBC is better than that, I thought.
Again, nothing wrong with a news network or media platform picking a side. It's sometimes unfortunate but it's much better than state TV like so many countries around the world have. CBC is publicly funded so scrutiny should be higher.
The Following User Says Thank You to Calgary '89 For This Useful Post:
Fairly interesting, nuanced, and dare I see even balanced discussion. How much would we gain by having a dissenting voice? What would they even say? Perhaps a comedian speaking to the 'pushing boundaries' side of comedy, but I think these three actually covered that pretty well...
The Following User Says Thank You to powderjunkie For This Useful Post:
Lol from the CBC to Fox News... I guess we'll just ignore nuance.
You can probably ask those questions to Tara Henley directly on Twitter if you like, she might even answer.
For me the question is how does airing a piece on Chappelle where you only interview 1 side of the argument not show bias? That's what Fox News does cuz they only cater to a specific audience. CBC is better than that, I thought.
Again, nothing wrong with a news network or media platform picking a side. It's sometimes unfortunate but it's much better than state TV like so many countries around the world have. CBC is publicly funded so scrutiny should be higher.
What was the bias in the piece above? I didn't hear any scolding or condemnation (beyond the take that the jokes weren't funny)
