What you are repeating is the Conservatives’ narrative, sure!
However, those threats continually made the CBC’s coverage friendly to the Conservatives, because they wanted to be seen as ‘neutral’ (and to give the Conservatives a reason to not cut their funding if they were to win an election).
Put it this way: if you were the CBC right now, would you be inclined to go full ‘gloves off’ and be hypercritical of the Carney govt? Or would you be trying to make nice, and potentially avoid these massive cuts?
Sounds like you’d agree that the Canadian reporters who happen to work for US-owned outlets like the Ottawa Citizen are also doing their best to tell the truth. Totally reasonable argument
Here’s a semi-related tip I learned that I use religiously:
Journalists are not supposed to be leading you to an opinion, so I look at if they’re using qualitative words instead of quantitative
Ex; “The car drove fast.” is leading you to an opinion. They should tell you a speed in number format so you can decide if that’s too fast for yourself.
Well, hopefully you can continue to provide this type of analysis when others in this community cast doubt on high-quality reporting merely because of the nationality of an outlet’s ownership.
While I recall seeing some columnists who seem to have a specific agenda to back certain industries, I think what most people are concerned about is not that breaking reports are done by cartoonishly evil journalists, but that foreign interests have undue influence over editorial decisions. (As I see it, billionaires from our own country are equally as bad and media concentration in general should also be addressed, but it makes sense to have reasonable restrictions on foreign-ownership of media.)
And yet when our PM threatens to slash the CBC’s budget by $198m, the same folks hammering those points fail to point out the exact same issue of undue pressure and influence. Why?
What you are repeating is the Conservatives’ narrative, sure!
However, those threats continually made the CBC’s coverage friendly to the Conservatives, because they wanted to be seen as ‘neutral’ (and to give the Conservatives a reason to not cut their funding if they were to win an election).
Put it this way: if you were the CBC right now, would you be inclined to go full ‘gloves off’ and be hypercritical of the Carney govt? Or would you be trying to make nice, and potentially avoid these massive cuts?
Personally, I would be doing my job of telling the truth about what’s going on regardless of who it’s bad for. 🤷♂️
Sounds like you’d agree that the Canadian reporters who happen to work for US-owned outlets like the Ottawa Citizen are also doing their best to tell the truth. Totally reasonable argument
I would hope so.
Here’s a semi-related tip I learned that I use religiously:
Journalists are not supposed to be leading you to an opinion, so I look at if they’re using qualitative words instead of quantitative
Ex; “The car drove fast.” is leading you to an opinion. They should tell you a speed in number format so you can decide if that’s too fast for yourself.
Well, hopefully you can continue to provide this type of analysis when others in this community cast doubt on high-quality reporting merely because of the nationality of an outlet’s ownership.
While I recall seeing some columnists who seem to have a specific agenda to back certain industries, I think what most people are concerned about is not that breaking reports are done by cartoonishly evil journalists, but that foreign interests have undue influence over editorial decisions. (As I see it, billionaires from our own country are equally as bad and media concentration in general should also be addressed, but it makes sense to have reasonable restrictions on foreign-ownership of media.)
I absolutely agree with everything you just said.
And yet when our PM threatens to slash the CBC’s budget by $198m, the same folks hammering those points fail to point out the exact same issue of undue pressure and influence. Why?